SynthesisUpdates in surgery2026
Effect of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols on mortality and morbidity after trauma and non-trauma emergency laparotomies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols on mortality and morbidity after trauma and non-trauma emergency laparotomies. A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis using random-effects modelling was conducted. All studies comparing outcomes of ERAS with no ERAS in adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomies in either trauma or non-trauma settings were included. Thirty-day mortality and morbidity were the outcomes. Trauma and non-trauma patients were analysed separately. Nine studies comprising 707 patients were included (ERAS group: 336; no ERAS group: 371). The ERAS components were preoperative counselling in 67% of studies, intraoperative hypothermia prevention in 67%, intraoperative goal-based fluid therapy in 55%, early oral intake in 100%, multimodal analgesia in 100%, early mobilisation in 100%, and early removal of tubes in 100%. The baseline characteristics of ERAS and no ERAS groups were comparable. In trauma setting, ERAS protocols did not improve the risk of postoperative mortality (0% vs 0%, RD: 0.00, 95% CI − 0.02 to 0.02, p = 0.999) or morbidity (30.0% vs 36.0%, OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.38–1.17, p = 0.160). In non-trauma setting, ERAS protocols did not improve the risk of mortality (3.4% vs 4.6%, RD: − 0.00, 95% CI − 0.03 to 0.02, p = 0.810) but they reduced the risk of morbidity (62.7% vs 96.0%, OR: 0.06, 95% CI 0.02–0.15, p < 0.0001). ERAS protocols are feasible and safe in patients undergoing trauma and non-trauma emergency laparotomies. They do not seem to improve morbidity and mortality after trauma laparotomies (moderate certainty). Although they reduce morbidity after non-trauma emergency laparotomies, the mortality risk remains unaffected (high certainty).
Indexed as
Identifiers
41843348What 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.