ReviewCureus2025
Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery and Enhanced Recovery and Outcomes: A Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paving the Way for ERAS in German Gynecologic and Gynecologic Oncology Departments: Insights into Barriers, Facilitators and Practical Strategies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Combined epidural-general anesthesia reduces opioid use and improves recovery after laparoscopic hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Review
- Research progress on discharge readiness service practices for patients undergoing endometrial cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
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
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive gynecological procedures. However, the absence of protocol uniformity among institutions, uneven implementation, uneven compliance, and the absence of research randomization limit the generalizability of findings. The aim of the review is to evaluate technological advancement, the efficacy of the integration of ERAS in minimally invasive gynecological surgery (MIGS) to improve clinical outcomes, challenges and controversies, and the way forward. The implementation of ERAS within minimally invasive gynecologic procedures leads to considerable positive results in postoperative outcomes. The implementation of ERAS protocols produces reduced pain and lower opioid requirements along with earlier patient mobilization and decreased hospital stays and an enhanced potential for same-day discharge for various benign and malignant gynecological procedures performed through laparoscopic, robotic, or vaginal techniques. The effectiveness of ERAS pathways demonstrates consistency among different surgical patient groups, such as adolescent and elderly women and gynecologic oncology patients, thus proving its broad clinical efficiency for current surgical procedures. A major benefit of this review stems from multiple research methods and extensive sample sizes, and multiple clinical settings to improve the universal application of research findings. The evidence showed that ERAS implementation was cost-effective, which proves it provides clinical and economic benefits. The implementation of ERAS protocols faces continued challenges because of diverse elements such as inconsistent patient adherence, possible publication bias, and insufficient long-term measurements. The studies use differing standardized outcome measures, which creates barriers to making direct outcome comparisons between them. The existing body of evidence supports establishing ERAS as a standard practice because it contributes to improved recovery and enhances both patient experience and healthcare operational effectiveness during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.