ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Propofol TIVA vs. inhalational anesthesia for spine surgery: in‑hospital mortality and postoperative complications in a nationwide Korean cohort.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Propofol in Perioperative Management of Head and Neck Cancer: A Narrative Review of Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Implications.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Propofol versus sevoflurane: how many RCTs is enough?Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Duration Versus Magnitude of BIS-Measured EEG Suppression and Postoperative Recovery Patterns: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven propofol's antioxidant and anti‑inflammatory properties compared with volatile/inhalational agents, we aimed to evaluate the association between anesthetic technique and both in‑hospital mortality and postoperative complications following spinal surgery.
methodsIn this retrospective, population‑based cohort study, we used South Korea's National Health Insurance Service database to identify adult patients (≥ 18 years) who underwent spinal surgery between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021. Primary outcomes were in‑hospital mortality and postoperative complications. Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was employed to balance baseline characteristics between the total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile/inhalational anesthesia (INH) groups.
resultsAmong 708,387 patients, 264,728 (37.4%) received TIVA and 443,659 (62.6%) received INH. After PS matching, 460,654 patients remained (230,327 per group). In the PS‑matched cohort, TIVA was associated with significantly lower odds of in‑hospital mortality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.80-0.89; P = 0.004) and postoperative complications (11.8% vs. 14.2%; OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.80-0.82; P < 0.001) compared with INH. In the full cohort, multivariable logistic regression confirmed these findings: TIVA remained linked to reduced in‑hospital mortality (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87; P < 0.001) and fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.70-0.73; P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn this nationwide cohort, propofol‑based TIVA was associated with lower in‑hospital mortality and fewer postoperative complications than volatile/inhalational anesthesia in adult spinal surgery patients. Prospective trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.