Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32256792›Full record

ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020

Individualized lung protective ventilation vs. conventional ventilation during general anesthesia in laparoscopic total hysterectomy.

Jing Liu, Xinhua Huang, Siping Hu, Zhipeng Meng, Huanzhong He

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jing LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Huzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China.
Xinhua HuangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Huzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China.
Siping HuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital of Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China.
Zhipeng MengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital of Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China.
Huanzhong HeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital of Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China.
Huzhou Central Hospital · CNHuzhou Women and Children's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic total hysterectomy is performed by carbon dioxide insufflation, Trendelenburg position and mechanical ventilation of patients under general anesthesia. However, this may induce pulmonary atelectasis and/or hyperdistention of the lungs. Multiple studies have indicated that mechanical ventilation with the use of low tidal volumes, moderate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and regular alveolar recruitment maneuvers may improve post-operative outcomes. However, the benefits of an individualized level of PEEP have not been clearly established. In the present study, it was hypothesized that a moderate fixed PEEP may not suit all patients and an individually-titrated PEEP during anesthesia may improve the peri-operative pulmonary oxygenation function. The aim of the present study was to compare the pulmonary oxygenation function and post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients receiving individualized lung-protective mechanical ventilation (LPV) vs. conventional ventilation (CV) during laparoscopic total hysterectomy. The present study was a randomized double-blinded clinical trial on 87 patients who were randomly divided to receive CV or protective ventilation (PV). An optimal individualized PEEP value was determined using a static pulmonary compliance-directed PEEP titration procedure. Pulmonary oxygenation function, serum inflammatory factors, including interleukin-8 and Clara cell protein 16, the incidence of PPCs and the post-operative length of stay were also determined. Patients in the PV group exhibited improved pulmonary oxygenation function during and after the operation. The total percentage of PPCs during the first 7 days after surgery was significantly lower in the PV group compared with those in the CV group. In conclusion, as compared to CV, intra-operative individualized LPV significantly improved pulmonary oxygenation function and reduced the incidence of PPCs during the first 7 days after laparoscopic total hysterectomy (Clinical trial registration no. ChiCTR1900027738).

Indexed as

individualized positive end-expiratory pressurelaparoscopic total hysterectomylung-protective mechanical ventilationpost-operative pulmonary complicationspulmonary oxygenation function

Identifiers

PMID32256792
PMCPMC7086193
OpenAlexW3008476310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.