Observational studyCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2025
The effect of major abdominal surgery on the sublingual microcirculation: an observational study.
Observational study in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiology, monitoring, and optimisation of perioperative tissue oxygenation: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Review
- The effects of lipopolysaccharide-induced endotoxic shock on the intestinal microcirculatory perfusion: an experimental study in pigs.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Impaired tissue perfusion in high-risk patients having major abdominal surgery: a multicenter observational study.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Glycocalyx-Shedding and Inflammatory Reactions Occur Yet Do Not Predict Complications Resulting from an Esophagectomy in an Accelerated Recovery After Surgery Program.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt remains unknown whether the sublingual microcirculation is impaired during noncardiac surgery. We, therefore, aimed to investigate the sublingual microcirculation in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Specifically, we sought to test the primary hypothesis that the sublingual microcirculation is persistently impaired during major abdominal surgery.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, we assessed the sublingual microcirculation using vital microscopy before induction of general anesthesia, at the time of surgical incision, every 20 min during surgery, and on the first postoperative day in 46 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The primary endpoint was the area under a proportion of perfused vessels (PPV) of 92% as a measure of the duration and severity of capillary red blood cell flow impairment.
resultsThe median [interquartile range (IQR)] intraoperative area under a PPV of 92% was 71%⋅min [2%⋅min-278%⋅min], and the median [IQR] time-weighted average PPV < 92% was 0.3% [0%-0.9%]. Twelve patients (26%) had an area under a PPV of 92% of 0%⋅min, and five patients (11%) had an area under a PPV of 92% of 400%⋅min or higher. The duration of surgery had no clinically important persistent effect on intraoperative PPV or any other sublingual microcirculation variable. The lowest intraoperative PPV was lower than the PPV at incision (estimated difference, -5.3%; 95% confidence interval, -6.3 to -4.4; P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe area under a PPV of 92% during elective major abdominal surgery was small, indicative of little impairment of sublingual microcirculation. The duration of surgery had no clinically important effect on sublingual microcirculatory variables.
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.