ArticleJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society2026
Comparison of ERAS-Based Same-Day and Non-Same-Day Protocols in IDEM Spinal Cord Tumor Surgeries : A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 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
objectiveWe developed enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)-based same-day surgery (SDS) and non-SDS protocols for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) spinal cord tumor surgeries, which were implemented in 2022. This study compared healthcare costs, and clinical and surgical outcomes between SDS and non-SDS protocols and describes how they are applied in practice.
methodsThis retrospective study included 173 patients who underwent surgery for IDEM spinal cord tumors performed by a single neurosurgeon at single institution between 2022 and 2024. All patients were managed under an ERAS-based protocol : 58 receiving the SDS protocol and 115 managed under the non-SDS protocol. Propensity score matching was performed using six variables, resulting in 48 matched pairs. Surgical outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, the presence of residual tumor on postoperative imaging, and postoperative complications. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual analog scale for pain, modified McCormick scale, the American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale, Karnofsky performance status scale, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, a 5-point Likert scale for surgical satisfaction, and 30-day readmission rates. Healthcare costs were analyzed using a detailed itemized statement of medical expenses.
resultsThere were no significant differences in surgical or clinical outcomes between the groups. The SDS group had a shorter length of stay (LOS; 4.1 vs. 5.6 days) and lower total hospital costs, with an average cost reduction of approximately 1200 US dollars (USD). Facility costs showed the largest difference (600 USD) between the groups.
conclusionERAS-based SDS and non-SDS protocols for IDEM spinal cord tumor surgery show similar surgical and clinical outcomes. However, ERAS-based SDS protocols significantly reduce LOS and total hospital costs. Therefore, this protocol-driven SDS approach can be considered a feasible and cost-effective strategy for carefully selected patients with IDEM spinal cord tumors.
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.