Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42664389›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2026

ERAS Protocol Elements and Neurosurgery-Specific Considerations: A Narrative Review.

Rudin Domi, Sarah Saxena, Joana Berger-Estilita, Daniele Guerino Biasucci, Başak Ceyda Meco, Krenar Lilaj, Gentian Huti, Idit Matot, Francesca Rubulotta, Anne Marie Camilleri Podesta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rudin DomiMedical University of Tirana Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Tirana, Albania.ORCID 0000-0003-4594-7815
Sarah SaxenaHarvard Medical School, Department of Anaesthesiology, Helora, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0073-8155
Joana Berger-EstilitaSalem-Spital, Hirslanden Hospital Group, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8695-4264
Daniele Guerino BiasucciUniversity of "Tor Vergata" Rome, Department of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6839-2416
Başak Ceyda MecoAnkara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-2951-9634
Krenar LilajMedical University of Tirana Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Tirana, Albania.ORCID 0000-0003-1878-1856
Gentian HutiAmerican Hospital 3, Clinic of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Tirana, Albania.ORCID 0000-0002-5539-0136
Idit MatotTel Aviv University Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Division of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-4830-222X
Francesca RubulottaCHIRMED University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8644-1728
Anne Marie Camilleri PodestaMater Dei Hospital, Clinic of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Msida, Malta.ORCID 0000-0002-7863-2038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Craniosynostosiscraniotomyenhanced recovery after surgerygeriatricneurosurgerypituitary surgeryspine surgery

Identifiers

PMID42664389
PMCPMC13529067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.