ArticleMedeniyet medical journal2025
The Effect of Flow-Controlled Ventilation on Mechanical Power in Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Comparative Analysis with Pressure Controlled Volume Guaranteed and Volume Controlled Ventilation.
Article in Medeniyet medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Flow-Controlled Ventilation on Mechanical Power in Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Comparative Analysis with Pressure Controlled Volume Guaranteed and Volume Controlled Ventilation.Medeniyet medical journal · 2026Article
- Comment on "The Effect of Flow-Controlled Ventilation on Mechanical Power in Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Comparative Analysis with Pressure Controlled Volume Guaranteed and Volume Controlled Ventilation".Medeniyet medical journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare mechanical power (MP) levels among flow-controlled ventilation (FCV), volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), and pressure-controlled volume-guaranteed ventilation (PCV-VG) during laparoscopic surgery and to test the hypothesis that the stable flow dynamics of FCV would reduce MP. Methods: Patients were divided into three groups according to the mechanical ventilation modes applied during laparoscopic surgery: PCV-VG (n=15), VCV (n=14), and FCV (n=15). MP was calculated at four timepoints: baseline (T1), post-induction (T2), during CO Results: Baseline MP was highest in PCV-VG (6.9 J/min vs. 5.0 J/min in VCV and 5.1 J/min in FCV; p=0.002). During insufflation (T3), MP increased to a similar extent across groups (PCV-VG: 9.4 J/min, VCV: 8.7 J/min, FCV: 8.6 J/min), with PCV-VG showing the smallest relative rise (p<0.001). DP and plateau pressures increased during pneumoperitoneum, but Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons revealed that these were not statistically significant. PCV-VG maintained higher positive end-expiratory pressure (5 vs. 4 cmH Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, FCV did not reduce MP more effectively than either VCV or PCV-VG. However, PCV-VG demonstrated better mitigation of insufflation-induced increases in MP, suggesting potential advantages for lung protection during laparoscopy. Further prospective studies are needed to assess clinical outcomes.
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.