ArticleNeurosurgical review2023
A standardized anesthetic/analgetic regimen compared to standard anesthetic/analgetic regimen for patients with high-risk factors undergoing open lumbar spine surgery: a prospective comparative single-center study.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2023. 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.
- A New Neuroanesthetic Protocol of Rendering Specialized Care in Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases in High-Risk Patients: Prospective Analysis of the Results.Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study is to improve the results of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery who are at high risk for anesthesia and/or surgical complications. Two independent groups were compared: the study group (SG, n = 40) (standardized neuroanesthetic protocol with multimodal analgesia) and the control group (CG, n = 40) (intravenous anesthesia based on propofol and fentanyl). The data were collected using prospective observation of early and long-term results of lumbar fusion. After 24 months, the level of functional state and quality of life were studied. Patients in the SG did not have statistically significant changes in intraoperative hemodynamics; the best indicators of cognitive functions were noted. The effectiveness of the SG compared with the CG was confirmed by a statistically significantly lower amount of perioperative opioid drugs required (p = 0.01) and a minimal level of incisional pain (p < 0.05). An intergroup comparison of the adverse effects of anesthesia revealed a significantly lower number in the SG (n = 4) compared to the CG (n = 16) (p = 0.004). The number of postoperative surgical complications was comparable (p = 0.72). Intergroup comparison showed improved ODI, SF-36, and the Macnab scale at 24 months after surgery in the SG compared to the CG (p < 0.05). Long-term clinical results correlated with the level of incisional pain in the first three postoperative days. Our standardized neuroanesthetic protocol ensured effective treatment of postoperative incisional pain, significantly decreased the perioperative use of opioids, reduced adverse anesthesia events, and improved long-term clinical results in patients with high risk factors for anesthetic complications who undergoing open lumbar spine surgery.
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.