ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
Retrospectively analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of thoracoscopic-assisted Nuss repair of pectus excavatum under intubation anesthesia and non-intubation anesthesia.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thoracoscopic-assisted Nuss repair is a commonly used method for treating pectus excavatum, which has always been performed under tracheal intubation and general anesthesia. However, general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation can produce intubation and anesthetic drug related complications. In non-intubation anesthesia, laryngeal mask is used instead of tracheal intubation without muscle relaxants and small doses of sedative and analgesic drugs. Therefore, non-intubation anesthesia can reduce complications and speed up postoperative recovery. This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical impact of these two anesthesia methods on thoracoscopic-assisted Nuss repair for the treatment of pectus excavatum. Methods: A total of 115 pectus excavatum patients who underwent thoracoscopic-assisted Nuss procedure repair in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Yunnan First People's Hospital from January 2017 to January 2022 were included. All subjects in this study underwent thoracoscopic assisted Nuss repair in the same thoracic surgical team. According to different anesthesia methods, they were divided into non-intubation anesthesia group (n=62) and intubation anesthesia group (n=53). The intubation time, intraoperative mean heart rate, postoperative complications, postoperative first oral food intake, water intake, ambulation, defecation time, postoperative blood drawing results, postoperative hospital stay and total hospitalization cost were compared between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics and preoperative examination indexes between the two groups, which were comparable. Compared with the intubation anesthesia group, the non-intubation anesthesia group had less anesthesia intubation time, lower intraoperative mean heart rate, less postoperative complications, such as pneumothorax, pleural effusion, and lung infection. In the non-intubation anesthesia group, the first time to eat, drink, get out of bed, and defecate were all earlier. Routine blood results 24 h after surgery indicated that the non-intubation anesthesia group had lower white blood cell, neutrophil and lymphocyte, an earlier postoperative discharge time, and lower total hospitalization expenses. Conclusions: Non-intubation anesthesia in thoracoscopic-assisted Nuss procedure for the repair of pectus excavatum can make the postoperative recovery of patients faster and has better safety and efficacy.
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.