ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2023
A Trial of Adding Lung Protective Strategies to Existing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols and Its Effect on Improving Postoperative Lung Function.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With this rising popularization of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, it is important to ask if the current and developing pathways are fully comprehensive for the patient's perioperative experience. Many current pathways discuss aspects of care including fluid management, pain management, and anti-emetic medication regiments, but few delineate recommendations for lung protective strategies. The hypothesis was that intraoperative lung protective strategies would results in improved postoperative lung function. Methods: One hundred patients at the Medical University of South Carolina undergoing hepatobiliary and colorectal surgeries were randomized to receive intraoperative lung protective techniques or a standard intraoperative ventilation management. Three maximum vital capacity breaths were recorded preoperatively, and postoperatively 30 min, 1 h, and 2 h after anesthesia stop time. Average maximum capacity breaths from all four data collection interactions were analyzed between both study and control cohorts. Results: There was no significant difference in the preoperative inspiratory capacity between the control and the ERAS group (2,043.3 ± 628.4 mL vs. 2,012.2 ± 895.2 mL; P = 0.84). Additional data analysis showed no statistically significant difference between ERAS and control groups: total average of the inspiratory capacity volumes (1,253.5 ± 593.7 mL vs. 1,390.4 ± 964.9 mL; P = 0.47), preoperative oxygen saturation (97.76±2.3% vs. 98.04±1.7%; P = 0.50), the postoperative oxygen saturation (98.51±1.4% vs. 96.83±14.2%; P = 0.40), and change in inspiratory capacity (95% confidence interval (CI) (-211.2 - 366.6); P = 0.60). Conclusions: No statistically significant difference in postoperative inspiratory capacities were seen after the implementation of intraoperative lung protective strategies. The addition of other indicators of postoperative lung function like pneumonia incidence or length of inpatient stay while receiving oxygen treatment could provide a fuller picture in future studies, but a higher power will be needed.
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.