Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40568263›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery and Enhanced Recovery and Outcomes: A Literature Review.

Estephano Fabian Ortiz Vazquez, Juan Camilo Londoño Victoria, Gabriela Alejandra Castillo López, Esthela Carolina Hidalgo Tapia, Francisco Isaac Mena Acosta, Sisa Del Rocio Puchaicela Namcela

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

6 authors.

Estephano Fabian Ortiz VazquezObstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Materno Infantil de Tijuana, Tijuana, MEX.
Juan Camilo Londoño VictoriaObstetrics and Gynecology, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, COL.
Gabriela Alejandra Castillo LópezOutpatient Care, Integramed, Quito, ECU.
Esthela Carolina Hidalgo TapiaHealth Education, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, ECU.
Francisco Isaac Mena AcostaObstetrics and Gynecology, Universidad del Azuay, Cuenca, ECU.
Sisa Del Rocio Puchaicela NamcelaMedical Research, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Loja, ECU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical outcomesenhanced recovery after surgeryenhanced recovery after surgery (eras)future directionsminimally invasive gynecologic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40568263
PMCPMC12188281

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.