ArticleMedicine2026
Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A retrospective study.
Article in Medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols on the clinical outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). This retrospective study included eligible patients with 3-level cervical disc herniation treated with ACDF between April 2020 and April 2022, with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on whether they received an ERAS protocol (ERAS+ group) or standard perioperative care (ERAS- group). Key outcome measures included hospital length of stay, total cost, estimated blood loss, visual analogue scale pain scores, Neck Disability Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, perioperative opioid usage, complication rates, and Bridwell bone fusion grades. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences 24.0, with significance set at P < .05. The implementation of an ERAS protocol in patients undergoing multilevel ACDF may be associated with improved perioperative metrics, enhanced functional recovery, reduced opioid use, and lower complication rates in this retrospective analysis. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these observations. A total of 110 eligible patients were enrolled in our study. Compared with the ERAS- group, the ERAS+ group demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stays (3.6 ± 0.5 vs 4.3 ± 0.8 days, P < .05), lower total costs (18,569.2 ± 872.4 vs 21,201.9 ± 1160.8 CNY, P < .05), and reduced estimated blood loss (75.5 ± 14.6 vs 107.2 ± 27.5 mL, P < .05). The ERAS+ group also showed superior improvements in visual analogue scale, Neck Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at follow-up visits (P < .05). Furthermore, the ERAS+ group had significantly lower perioperative opioid consumption, a lower incidence of overall complications (P < .05), and better Bridwell fusion grades (P < .05).
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.