ArticleKorean journal of anesthesiology2026
Severe bradycardia in a child with an implanted vagus nerve stimulator undergoing laparoscopy -A case report.
Article in Korean journal of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVagus nerve stimulation is an established therapeutic option for children with drug-resistant epilepsy who do not respond to other treatments. During surgical procedures, this therapy has various anesthetic implications and may result in critical respiratory and cardiac complications. CASE: We report the case of a 13-year-old child with an implanted vagus nerve stimulator who underwent laparoscopy-assisted gastrostomy tube placement under general anesthesia with the device activated. A severe episode of bradycardia occurred during pneumoperitoneum, which was successfully managed pharmacologically, without external device deactivation. The rationale for this management decision is discussed and reflections based on the clinical course are provided.
conclusionsPerioperative management of vagus nerve stimulators must be individualized. Maintaining device activation may be reasonable in children with recent seizure activity, whereas temporary deactivation may be considered during procedures associated with a high risk of vagal reflex. However, in cases requiring immediate deactivation, pharmacological intervention may be necessary given the deactivation magnet latency.
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.