Scholarlink

Aim <p>The aim is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)—based protocol with conventional perioperative recovery protocols in routine maxillofacial surgical procedures.</p> Methods <p>This prospective, observational, single-centre study included patients classified as ASA I and II, undergoing head and neck surgeries with an operative time exceeding 4&#xa0;h. Participants were divided into a test group managed using an ERAS—based protocol and a control group managed with a traditional recovery protocol (TRP). Postoperative outcomes assessed included length of hospital stay, readmission rate, hospital costs, duration of antibiotic use, perioperative pain (measured via the Visual Analogue Scale), and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), assessed via questionnaire.</p> Results <p>Statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of antibiotic duration, pain scores, PONV, and readmission rates, all favouring the ERAS group. However, no statistically significant differences were found in hospital length of stay or cost between the two groups.</p> Conclusion <p>The ERAS protocol effectively reduces postoperative complications and perioperative stress. A coordinated, multidisciplinary approach is recommended to optimize recovery and improve outcomes beyond the immediate clinical setting.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation and Comparison of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)-Based Protocol with Traditional Surgical Recovery Protocols for Routine Maxillofacial Procedures Implemented in a Tertiary Care Centre

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月26日

查看全文
  • Mugdha Francis,
  • Srikanth Gadicherla,
  • Chithra Aramanadka,
  • Mathangi Kumar,
  • Adarsh Kudva

摘要

Aim

The aim is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)—based protocol with conventional perioperative recovery protocols in routine maxillofacial surgical procedures.

Methods

This prospective, observational, single-centre study included patients classified as ASA I and II, undergoing head and neck surgeries with an operative time exceeding 4 h. Participants were divided into a test group managed using an ERAS—based protocol and a control group managed with a traditional recovery protocol (TRP). Postoperative outcomes assessed included length of hospital stay, readmission rate, hospital costs, duration of antibiotic use, perioperative pain (measured via the Visual Analogue Scale), and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), assessed via questionnaire.

Results

Statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of antibiotic duration, pain scores, PONV, and readmission rates, all favouring the ERAS group. However, no statistically significant differences were found in hospital length of stay or cost between the two groups.

Conclusion

The ERAS protocol effectively reduces postoperative complications and perioperative stress. A coordinated, multidisciplinary approach is recommended to optimize recovery and improve outcomes beyond the immediate clinical setting.