SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Effects of intraoperative inhalational versus intravenous anesthesia on perioperative neurological outcomes and long-term prognosis in patients with moyamoya disease undergoing revascularization surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMoyamoya disease (MMD) is a rare cerebrovascular disorder characterized by progressive stenosis of intracranial carotid arteries and abnormal collateral network formation. Surgical revascularization is the standard treatment for stroke prevention, but the optimal intraoperative anesthetic strategy to minimize perioperative neurological complications remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares inhalational versus intravenous anesthesia for perioperative neurological outcomes in MMD patients undergoing revascularization.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from database inception to April 2026, including randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies comparing the two anesthesia regimens. Two investigators independently completed literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Random-effects models were applied to pool effect sizes. Primary outcomes included postoperative transient neurological events (TNEs), post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) delirium, and postoperative stroke. Evidence quality was graded using the GRADE system.
resultsEleven studies (1673 patients, 2232 procedures) were included, with 6 studies constituting the core quantitative analysis set. Outcome coverage varied: 5 studies reported TNEs, 2 reported postoperative stroke, and only 1 single-center study reported PACU delirium. Pooled results showed no significant intergroup difference in TNEs (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.55-1.38, P = 0.56, I² = 61%) or postoperative stroke (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.50-2.17, P = 0.91, I² = 0%). Based on limited pediatric data, inhalational anesthesia may be associated with increased PACU delirium risk in children. Qualitative evidence indicated both regimens maintained stable cerebral oxygenation, while propofol-based intravenous anesthesia had advantages in reducing intracranial pressure and improving surgical field exposure.
conclusionsCurrent low-to-very-low quality evidence shows no significant difference in major perioperative neurological complications between the two anesthetic regimens for MMD revascularization. Intravenous anesthesia has potential advantages in intraoperative cerebral physiology and surgical conditions, and may be considered preferentially for children at high delirium risk, with limited evidence strength. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251272930.
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.