ArticlePloS one2024
Goal-directed fluid therapy on the postoperative complications of laparoscopic hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery: An interventional comparative study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative fluid balance significantly affects patients' outcomes. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has reduced the incidence of major postoperative complications by 20% for 30 days after open abdominal surgery. Little is known about GDFT during laparoscopic surgery.
aimWe investigated whether GDFT affects the postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery compared with conventional fluid management.
methodsThis interventional comparative study with a historical control group was performed in the tertiary care center. Patients were allocated to one of two groups. The GDFT (n = 147) was recruited prospectively and the conventional group (n = 228) retrospectively. In the GDFT group, fluid management was guided by the stroke volume (SV) and cardiac index (CI), whereas it had been performed based on vital signs in the conventional group. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed to reduce selection bias (n = 147 in each group). Postoperative complications were evaluated as primary outcome measures.
resultsThe amount of crystalloid used during surgery was less in the GDFT group than in the conventional group (5.1 ± 1.1 vs 6.3 ± 1.8 ml/kg/h, respectively; P <0.001), whereas the amount of colloid was comparable between the two groups. The overall proportion of patients who experienced any adverse events was 57.8% in the GDFT group and 70.1% in the conventional group (P = 0.038), of which the occurrence of pleural effusion was significantly lower in the GDFT group than in the conventional group (9.5% vs. 19.7%; P = 0.024). During the postoperative period, the proportion of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was lower in the GDFT group than that in the conventional group after PS matching (4.1% vs 10.2%; P = 0.049).
conclusionsGDFT based on SV and CI resulted in a lower net fluid balance than conventional fluid therapy. The overall complication rate in laparoscopic hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery decreased after GDFT, and the frequency of pleural effusion was the most affected.
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.