Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33606764›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Inhalational versus intravenous maintenance of anesthesia for quality of recovery in patients undergoing corrective lower limb osteotomy: A randomized controlled trial.

Seung Hyun Kim, Hyang Mi Ju, Chong-Hyuck Choi, Hae Ri Park, Seokyung Shin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06275087 (Differences in Speed of Recovery From Anesthesia and Recovery of Muscle Strength in General Balanced Inhalation Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Intraoral Surgery - Clinical Randomised Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

NCT06275087 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Differences in Speed of Recovery From Anesthesia and Recovery of Muscle Strength in General Balanced Inhalation Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Intraoral Surgery - Clinical Randomised Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorClinical Hospital Centre ZagrebRan2024 to 2026Enrolled42ConditionsIntraoral TumorArmsPropofol, Sevoflurane
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Seung Hyun KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2127-6324
Hyang Mi JuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chong-Hyuck ChoiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hae Ri ParkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seokyung ShinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2641-0070
Yonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInhalational anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are the two most popular methods of general anesthesia with distinct characteristics that may affect quality of recovery (QOR) differently. This study compared QOR after corrective lower limb osteotomy between desflurane-based inhalational anesthesia and propofol-based TIVA.

methodsSixty-eight patients, ASA class I or II who underwent corrective lower limb osteotomy were randomized to receive either desflurane anesthesia or propofol TIVA. The primary outcome was quality of recovery 40 (QoR-40) questionnaire scores on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. Postoperative nausea scores, antiemetic requirements, and amount of opioid consumption via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) were assessed as secondary outcomes.

resultsGlobal QoR-40 scores on POD 1 (153.5 (140.3, 171.3) vs. 140.0 (120.0, 173.0), P = 0.056, 95% CI; -22.5, 0.2) and POD 2 (155.5 (146.8, 175.5) vs. 152.0 (134.0, 179.0), P = 0.209, 95% CI; -17.5, 3.9) were comparable between the two groups. Among the five dimensions of QoR-40, physical independence scores were significantly higher in the TIVA group compared to the Desflurane group on POD both 1 and 2. Nausea scores (0.0 (0.0, 0.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 3.5), P < 0.001) and number of patients requiring rescue antiemetics (0% vs. 15.2%, P = 0.017) were significantly lower in the TIVA group at the post anesthesia care unit (PACU). Although the number of bolus attempts between 0-24 h and the morphine equivalent dose of analgesics administered via IV PCA between 12-24 h were significantly less in the TIVA group compared to the Desflurane group, there was no significant difference between groups for the overall 48 h postoperative period.

conclusionsPropofol-based TIVA did not improve global QoR-40 scores compared with desflurane-based inhalational anesthesia. However, considering the better QoR-40 scores in the domain of physical independence and less nausea in the early postoperative period, propofol TIVA should be considered as a useful option in patients undergoing corrective lower limb osteotomy.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, IntravenousAnesthetics, IntravenousAdultDesfluraneFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesLower ExtremityMaleMiddle AgedOsteotomyPostoperative Nausea and VomitingPropofolRecovery of FunctionYoung AdultAnesthetics, IntravenousDesfluraneHypnotics and SedativesPropofol

Identifiers

PMID33606764
PMCPMC7894931
OpenAlexW3131834726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.