ArticleMaedica2025
Comparison Between Conventional and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in Cases of Emergency Laparotomy.
Article in Maedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Versus Conventional Care in Elderly Patients Undergoing Transvaginal Pelvic Floor Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and Surgical Site Infections (SSIs).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) or Early Recovery Programs (ERP) represents a paradigm shift in perioperative care, aiming to mitigate surgical stress and accelerate patient recovery. While well-established in elective colorectal surgeries, its efficacy in emergency settings, particularly for acute abdomen requiring emergency laparotomy, remains less explored. This study investigates the effect of a tailored ERAS care protocol on patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Materials and methods: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India, from April 2023 to April 2025 (CTRI No: CTRI/2023/05/052783).Seventy-eight patients aged 18-65 years, presenting with acute abdomen and scheduled for emergency laparotomy (ASA I-II), were randomized 1:1 into either the ERAS group or conventional (CONV) group (n=39 each) using computer-generated block randomization and serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes (SNOSE). The study was blinded to patients, envelope opening personnel and investigators. The primary endpoint variable was the duration of hospital stay (DHS). Secondary endpoints included postoperative morbidities/ complications (according to Clavien-Dindo classification), time to first flatus, postoperative pain scores/analgesia requirement and reexploration readmission rate. Results: The mean DHS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group (3.17 ± 0.79 days) than the CONV one (7.87 ± 3.22 days) (p<0.001). Early removal of nasogastric tubes (64.10% on Day 0 vs 58.97% on Day ≥3, p<0.001) and urinary catheters (97.44% on Day 1 vs 69.23% on Day ≥3, p<0.001) was significantly higher in the ERAS group. Also, ERAS patients were mobilized earlier (100% on Day 1 vs 48.72% on Day 2, p<0.001) and showed faster recovery of bowel function (early flatus passage 100% vs 74.36% in ≤ three days, p<0.001). Oral diet initiation was significantly earlier in the ERAS group (66.67% on Day 1 vs 87.18% on Day ≥3, p<0.001). Overall postoperative complications were lower in the ERAS group (10.26% vs 33.33%) for immediate complications, and specifically, ERAS showed lower incidences of postoperative ileus (2.56% vs 15.36%), postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) (5.12% vs 10.24%), lung complications (0% vs 8.18%), superficial surgical site infection (SSI) (5.13% vs 12.82%), deep SSI (0% vs 5.12%) and anastomotic leak (0% vs 2.56%) and readmission-requiring complications (5.13% vs 7.69%). Also, ERAS patients reported lower postoperative pain scores and required less opioid analgesia than subjects in the CONV group. Conclusion: Application of a tailored ERAS care protocol approach in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy significantly reduces the DHS, lowers intraoperative blood loss, facilitates earlier removal of tubings, promotes early mobilization and bowel function recovery, accelerates oral diet initiation and significantly decreases postoperative complications including Postoperative ileus, PONV, lung complications and surgical site infections. These findings support the adoption of ERAS principles even in challenging emergency surgical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.