ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Enhanced Recovery Pathways in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: Recovery and Safety in an Updated Meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate postoperative recovery, analgesic use, complications, and short-term safety of multicomponent enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways versus conventional care after head and neck cancer surgery.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched through 22 July 2026. Comparative studies were synthesized using restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects models. Hospital length of stay was the primary outcome. Procedure-stratified and sensitivity analyses were performed, and certainty was assessed using GRADE.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 15 studies involving 2787 patients. The ERAS approach was associated with shorter hospital stay (13 studies; mean difference [MD], - 2.75 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 4.16 to - 1.35 days), earlier enteral feeding (4 studies; MD, - 1.49 days; 95% CI, - 1.96 to 1.01 days), and lower 72-h opioid consumption (3 studies; MD, - 55.98 mg morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]; 95% CI, - 70.89 to - 41.07 MMEs). No clear differences were observed in 30-day readmission, total flap failure, reoperation, or 30-day mortality. Overall complications were model dependent, and no significant interaction by surgical approach was detected. Evidence certainty was low for hospital stay, enteral feeding, and opioid consumption and very low for the remaining outcomes.
conclusionsThe ERAS approach may improve recovery efficiency and reduce early opioid requirements after head and neck cancer surgery. Evidence for major complications and short-term safety remains uncertain.
Identifiers
42907711What 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.