Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30342558›Full record

ArticleJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale2018

Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model.

M Gazzaz, J Saini, S Pagliardini, B Tsui, C Jeffery, H El-Hakim

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M GazzazDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, 2C3.57 Walter MacKenzie Centre, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R7, Canada. mgazzaz@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3683-2031
J SainiNeuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
S PagliardiniNeuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
B TsuiStanford University Pediatric Regional Anesthesia, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
C JefferyDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, 2C3.57 Walter MacKenzie Centre, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R7, Canada.
H El-HakimDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, 2C3.57 Walter MacKenzie Centre, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R7, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPropofol and remifentanil intravenous combination is one popular form of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in mainstream clinical practice, but it has rarely been applied to a rat model for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Our objective was to establish a safe and reproducible general anesthetic protocol for laryngoscopy and endoscopic LEMG in a rat model. Our hypothesis is that TIVA allows a minimally morbid, and feasible laryngoscopy and LEMG.

methodsSprague Dawley rats were subjected to either inhalational anesthesia (IA) (isoflurane) or TIVA (propofol and remifentanil) and underwent laryngoscopy and LEMG. The primary outcome was a complete minimally interrupted rigid laryngoscopy and obtaining reproducible motor unit potentials from the posterior cricoarytenoid muscles. The secondary outcome was morbidity and mortality.

resultsSeventeen out of twenty-two rats underwent both TIVA and IA. Only two underwent IA only. All nineteen rats that underwent IA had a successful experiment. Seventeen rats underwent TIVA, however, only nine completed a successful experiment due to difficulty achieving a surgical plane, and respiratory events. Upon comparing the success of the two anaesthetic regimens, IA was superior to TIVA (P = 0.0008). There was no statistical difference between the amplitudes (p = 0.1985) or motor units burst duration (p = 0.82605) of both methods. Three mortalities were encountered, one of which was due to lidocaine toxicity and two were during anesthetic induction. Respiratory related morbidity was encountered in two rats, all seen with TIVA.

conclusionsTIVA is not an ideal anesthetic regimen for laryngeal endoscopy and LEMG in rat models. Contrary to our hypothesis, IA did not affect the quality of the LEMG and allowed a seamless rigid endoscopy.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, IntravenousAnesthetics, InhalationAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalElectromyographyIsofluraneLaryngoscopyMalePropofolRandom AllocationRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyRemifentanilSensitivity and SpecificityAnesthetics, InhalationIsofluranePropofolRemifentanilInhalational anesthesiaLaryngeal electromyographyLaryngeal mobility disordersTotal intravenous anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID30342558
PMCPMC6196000
OpenAlexW2896418442

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.