ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Non-selective enhanced recovery pathway in primary hip and knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched analysis on safety and efficacy.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) was introduced in hip and knee arthroplasty to expedite recovery, shorten inpatient stay, and reduce costs. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of implementing a universal standardized non-selective ERAS service for all patients admitted for primary hip and knee arthroplasty in a single high-volume tertiary orthopaedic centre.
methodsAll patients who underwent primary hip or knee arthroplasty under ERAS from April 2023 to March 2024 were compared with a matched cohort between January 2018 and December 2019. Patients were matched at a 2:1 ratio based on procedure, age, sex, ASA grade, and BMI (ERAS = 1811, Standard Care = 3549 patients). Outcomes included Length of Stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, overall infection, superficial infection, deep infection, 30- and 90-day mortality rates.
resultsThe median LOS was 1 day (IQR 1-2) in the ERAS group versus 3 days (IQR 2-4) in the Standard Care group (W = 5,415,769, P < 0.001). Rates of 30-day readmission (1.7% vs. 2.1%), overall infection (0.66% vs. 1.15%), deep infection (0.39% vs. 0.68%), superficial infection (0.28% vs. 0.48%), 30-day mortality (0.11% vs. 0.20%), and 90-day mortality (0.22% vs. 0.37%) were all higher in the Standard Care group. However, these differences were not statistically significant, with P-values of 0.41, 0.11, 0.26, 0.38, 0.70, and 0.52, respectively. The estimated cost reduction per patient with the ERAS pathway, considering only the difference in LOS, is £718.60(95%CI £602.56 to £832.64). The subgroup analysis for patients ≥ 80 revealed a statistically significant difference in LOS, which was more pronounced with a median difference of 3 days (5 days in standard care versus 2 days in ERAS, P < 0.001).
conclusionNon-selective ERAS was safe and effective in reducing LOS for patients undergoing primary THA and TKA across all age groups and varying comorbidity statuses. Although perioperative morbidity and mortality were less in ERAS, these changes did not reach statistical significance.
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.