Propofol/Sufentanil Anesthesia Suppresses the Metabolic and Endocrine Response During, Not After, Lower Abdominal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We investigated the influence of propofol/sufentanil anesthesia on metabolic and endocrine responses during, and immediately after, lower abdominal surgery. Twenty otherwise healthy patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for benign myoma received either continuous infusions of propofol supplemented with sufentanil (0.01 microg. kg(-1). min(-1), n = 10) or enflurane anesthesia (enflurane, n = 10). Plasma concentrations of glucose, lactate, free fatty acids, triglycerides, insulin, glucagon, cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine were measured before, during, and 2 h after surgery. Pre- and postoperative endogenous glucose production (R(a) glucose) was analyzed by an isotope dilution technique by using [6,6-(2)H(2)] glucose. Propofol/sufentanil anesthesia prevented the increase in plasma cortisol and catecholamine concentrations and attenuated the hyperglycemic response during surgery without showing any difference after the operation. Mediated through a higher glucagon/insulin quotient (propofol/sufentanil 15 +/- 7 versus enflurane 8 +/- 4 pg/microU, P < 0.05), the R(a) glucose postoperatively increased more in the propofol/sufentanil than in the enflurane group (propofol/sufentanil 15.6 +/- 2.0 versus enflurane 13.4 +/- 2.2 micromol. kg(-1). min(-1), P < 0.05). IMPLICATIONS: The concept of stress-free anesthesia using propofol combined with sufentanil is valid only during surgery. The metabolic endocrine stress response 2 h after the operation is more pronounced than after inhaled anesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".