ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
Volume-controlled ventilation versus pressure-controlled ventilation during spine surgery in the prone position: A meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of pressure-controlled ventilation targeting end-inspiratory flow rate on pulmonary complications and inflammation levels in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position: a randomized clinical trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- Surgical bleeding in patients undergoing posterior lumbar inter-body fusion surgery: a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of two mechanical ventilation mode types.European journal of medical research · 2023Trial
- Impact of zero-positive end-expiratory pressure on blood transfusion rates in off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Effect of Pressure-Controlled Versus Volume-Controlled Ventilation Modes on Intraoperative Bleeding in Rhinoplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical evaluation of ventilation mode on acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with respiratory failure.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Effect of target-controlled pressure-controlled ventilation on percutaneous nephrolithotripsy patients under general anesthesia: a retrospective study.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many studies have investigated a comparison of the potency and safety of PCV versus VCV modes in spinal surgery in prone position. However, controversy about the maximal benefits of which ventilation modes remains. The main purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate which one is the optimal ventilation for surgery patients undergoing spine surgery in prone position between the two ventilation modes as PCV and VCV. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for potentially eligible articles. The continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and the associated 95% confidence interval. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: Our meta-analysis included 8 RCTs involving a total of 454 patients between 2012 and 2020. The results demonstrated that IOB, Ppeak and CVP for VCV are significantly superior to PCV in spinal surgery in prone position. And PCV had higher Cdyn and PaO Conclusions: The PCV mode displayed a more satisfying effect than VCV mode. Compared to VCV mode in same preset of tidal volume, the patients with PCV mode in prone position demonstrated less IOB, lower Ppeak and CVP, and higher PaO
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.