ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2026
ERAS Protocol Elements and Neurosurgery-Specific Considerations: A Narrative Review.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a structured, evidence-based, multimodal perioperative framework designed to reduce surgical stress and accelerate recovery. Although these pathways are widely established across surgical specialties, their implementation in neurosurgery presents unique challenges because recovery-enhancing interventions must be balanced against neurological protection, haemodynamic stability, intracranial physiology, and procedure-specific safety considerations. This narrative review synthesises current evidence regarding ERAS implementation across cranial and spinal neurosurgical procedures, including elective craniotomy, spine surgery, pituitary surgery, vascular neurosurgery, and selected paediatric and geriatric populations. While available studies consistently demonstrate reductions in hospital length of stay, opioid consumption, and resource utilisation without increasing perioperative complications, interpretation of these findings is limited by substantial heterogeneity in protocol design, outcome definitions, and adherence reporting, and by the scarcity of long-term neurological and patient-reported outcomes. Beyond summarising existing evidence, this review proposes a conceptual framework distinguishing two fundamentally different ERAS paradigms within neurosurgery: a function-driven model predominantly applicable to spine surgery, where recovery acceleration is the principal objective, and a safety-constrained model characteristic of cranial neurosurgery, where neurological monitoring, intracranial pressure management, and haemorrhagic risk frequently limit implementation of conventional ERAS elements. This distinction provides a physiological and clinical rationale for procedure-specific adaptation rather than uniform application of these principles. The review further argues that the benefits of ERAS arise primarily from pathway standardisation, multidisciplinary coordination, and high protocol adherence rather than from isolated perioperative interventions. By identifying the limitations of current evidence and highlighting the need for neurosurgery-specific outcome measures, standardised reporting, and protocol stratification by surgical pathology, this review offers a framework for future research and more tailored implementation of ERAS pathways within neurosurgical practice.
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.