ArticleSovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine2024
A New Neuroanesthetic Protocol of Rendering Specialized Care in Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases in High-Risk Patients: Prospective Analysis of the Results.
Article in Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine, 2024. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Materials and Methods: Two groups of patients with a high risk of anesthesia and surgery determined by the authors' clinical decision support system (CDSS) have been prospectively studied. A new neuroanesthetic protocol was used in the experimental group (EG, n=25), while the control group (CG, n=25) underwent intravenous anesthesia based on propofol and fentanyl. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was performed in all cases. Changes of the intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate, intensity of the local pain syndrome, amount of the opiates used, presence of cognitive disorders, adverse effects of anesthesia, and surgical complications have been compared. Results: The groups were representative (p>0.05) in terms of the age-gender parameters, anthropological data, comorbid background, involvement in smoking, preoperative characteristics of the lumbar spine, as well as the level of cognitive functions. No statistically significant changes of the mean arterial pressure (p=0.17) were registered in EG patients relative to the CG (p=0.0008). Intraoperative reduction of the heart rate in patients of the CG was not noted (p=0.49) in comparison with the EG (p=0.03). In the postoperative period, the best indicators of cognitive functions on the FAB test (p=0.02) and MoCA test (p=0.03) were revealed in EG. A significantly less amount of perioperative opiates (p=0.005) at a low level of the local pain syndrome was also noted (p=0.01). The intergroup analysis has shown fewer adverse effects of anesthesia in EG compared to CG (p=0.01) with a comparable number of postoperative surgical complications (p=0.42). Conclusion: A new neuroanesthetic protocol of rendering a specialized care to patients with a high risk of anesthesia and surgery, assessed by the authors-developed CDSS, has resulted in effective elimination of the local postoperative pain syndrome, reduction of perioperative application of opioids, and stabilization of intraoperative indicators of cardiovascular activity. In addition, no postoperative cognitive disorders, anesthetic side-effects, adverse pharmacological consequences of the complex usage of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, prolonged local anesthetics, alpha-2-agonist, and non-narcotic analgesics have been registered.
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.