Evidence Hub

Enhanced recovery after surgery for cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with trial sequential analysis

de Oliveira TTC, Tapioca V, Pereira E, Ferreira B, Soares T, Amaral S, Assis ML, Carvalho G et al.

Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier), 2026

1,128 participants

Abstract

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have improved perioperative care across multiple surgical specialties. In obstetrics, ERAS pathways for cesarean delivery have been increasingly adopted; however, their comparative effectiveness versus standard care remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis to compare ERAS protocols with standard perioperative care in cesarean delivery.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS and standard care in parturient undergoing cesarean delivery. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.2.2). We conducted subgroup analyses based on cesarean category (elective vs. emergency) and national income level. A Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) was also performed.

Results: We included 13 RCTs comprising 1,809 parturient. ERAS was associated with a significant reduction in hospital Length of Stay (LOS) compared with standard care (MD = -17.05 hours, 95% CI -25.08 to -9.02 hours, I2 = 98.2%, n = 1,128, p < 0.01), with similar effects across elective and emergency cesarean deliveries. Greater reductions were observed in low- and middle-income countries, whereas no significant difference was identified in upper-middle-income settings, albeit formal subgroup test was not significant. ERAS was associated with lower postoperative pain at 24 and 48…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,128 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free