ArticleJournal of anesthesia2026
The predictive performance of the Marsh model for propofol target-controlled infusion during laparoscopic surgery with liver retraction.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate whether CO₂ pneumoperitoneum and liver retraction affect predictive performance of the Marsh pharmacokinetic model for propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) during laparoscopic or robot-assisted gastrectomy.
methodsAdult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or robot-assisted gastrectomy were enrolled. Arterial blood samples were collected at predefined intraoperative time points, and plasma propofol concentration (Cp) was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Performance error (PE), median PE (MDPE), median absolute PE (MDAPE), wobble, and divergence were calculated. Associations between PE and procedural factors, time after anesthetic induction, and cardiac index (CI) were evaluated using linear mixed-effects models. Finally, an exploratory PE-correction equation was internally evaluated by leave-one-patient-out cross-validation.
resultsA total of 155 measurements from 16 patients were analyzed. The overall MDPE and MDAPE were 10.2 and 20.4%, respectively. In the fully adjusted model, liver retraction was associated with a 10.0-percentage-point higher PE (95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 18.7), whereas each 1 L/min/m2 decrease in CI was associated with a 16.4-percentage-point increase in PE (95% confidence interval, 6.1 to 26.6). PE decreased by 3.3 percentage points/h after anesthetic induction. Pneumoperitoneum and head-up positioning were not independently associated with PE. The exploratory PE-correction equation improved prediction metrics in internal validation.
conclusionThe Marsh model showed an overall positive bias within conventional MDPE and MDAPE thresholds. Higher PE was associated with liver retraction, lower CI, and earlier time after anesthetic induction, whereas pneumoperitoneum was not independently associated with PE after adjustment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42687012What 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.