ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Consumption of isoflurane and recovery time in low-flow anaesthesia versus high-flow anaesthesia.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
Objective: To compare the effects of low-flow versus high-flow Isoflurane anesthesia on volatile anesthetic consumption, recovery characteristics, postoperative inflammatory response, and patient clinical outcomes in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methodology: This quasi-experimental study was conducted at Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Malir Cantt, Karachi, Pakistan from October 2022-March 2023. A total of 280 consecutive eligible patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were recruited using non-probability convenience sampling and assigned into Group-A (Low-flow anesthesia) (n=140) and Group-B (High-flow anesthesia) (n=140). Primary variables were the mean intraoperative isoflurane consumption, and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) at 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary variables were patient outcomes and anesthesia adverse effect profile. Results: Mean isoflurane consumption was significantly lower in Group-A at 12.04 ± 3.00 mL, compared with 16.18 ± 3.79 mL in Group-B (p<0.001). Median baseline NLR values were nearly the same: 2.27 (0.87) in Group-A and 2.30 (0.89) in Group-B (p=0.972). However, postoperative NLR at 24 hours showed a clear rise in Group-B, recorded as 4.46 (2.01), compared with 3.45 (1.54) in Group-A (p<0.001). Low-flow anesthesia was associated with shorter time to extubation while time to Aldrete score ≥ 9, postoperative pain score, rescue analgesia requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting, shivering, hypothermia, delayed emergence, dizziness and HDU admissions were comparable between groups. Conclusion: The study supports low flow anaesthesia as an effective technique that reduces anesthetic use, shortens the extubation time and attenuated the postoperative inflammatory response without increasing perioperative adverse events related to anesthesia or delaying recovery.
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.