ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Assessment of recovery in maxillofacial surgical patients undergoing intravenous conscious sedation using PSI monitoring.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of the studyIt aims to assess the use of the PSI monitor in monitoring sedation depth during oral surgeries. It seeks to determine whether using the PSI monitor is more effective in terms of patient recovery. METHODOLOGY: It is prospective case control study. This study included 24 patients of minor oral surgical procedures treated over a period of 24 months from June 2021 to May 2023 after the permission was granted by ethics committee. The predictor variables were usage of OAA/S scale and PSI monitor. Groups underwent sedation using a standard dose of fentanyl and midazolam, with difference being the endpoint for sedation levels. The primary outcome variables are duration of the procedure, time of last dose of medication before surgery ends and secondary outcome variables are patient satisfaction scale and various questionnaire for assessment of recovery.
resultsThere are 12 cases in each group with a p-value of 0.05 significance level and 80% power. • Total duration of procedure 66.17 ± 19.04 min in OAA/S and 62.25 ± 22.03 min in PSI group. • The straight-line and Trieger Dot Test were completed significantly sooner in PSI patients (11.33 min vs. 7.75 min; P -0.004) and (26.25 min vs. 20.00 min; p = 0.042) respectively. • Timing of Last Dose: midazolam: OAA/S: 17.17 ± 14.01 min, PSI: 25.00 ± 15.72 min (p = 0.472) propofol: OAA/S: 19.25 ± 10.63 min, PSI: 16.75 ± 14.62 min (p = 0.637).
conclusionThe research highlights the potential of PSI monitoring in oral-maxillofacial surgery. It emphasizes the importance of real-time assessment tools in promoting patient well-being and confidence in dental care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40465106What 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.