ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Randomized double-blind trial comparing effects of low-flow vs high-flow anesthesia on postoperative lung functions using respirometer.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consumption of isoflurane and recovery time in low-flow anaesthesia versus high-flow anaesthesia.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsModern anesthetic practice utilizes low-flow anesthesia with evolving evidence on its pulmonary effects. Studies comparing measurement of vital capacity and inspiratory reserve volume using respirometer in both low-flow and high-flow anesthesia are sparse. We evaluated the effects of low-flow and high-flow anesthesia on postoperative pulmonary functions using respirometer. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a prospective randomized double blind study wherein One hundred and ten patients undergoing peripheral surgeries under general anesthesia were allocated into two groups Group I- Low-flow anesthesia with O2 + N2O + Sevoflurane (0.5L + 0.5L + 3.5%) and Group II- High-flow anesthesia with O2 + N2O + Sevoflurane (2L + 2L + 2%). The difference in vital capacity (VC), inspiratory reserve volume (IRV), and peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR) from the preoperative period were compared in both the groups postoperatively.
resultsThe difference in VC, IRV, and PEFR measured in both the groups between the preoperative and postoperative period were found to be similar and statistically insignificant (
conclusionsThe pulmonary effects of low-flow anesthesia are comparable with the high-flow ones in patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.