The Assessment of Postural Stability After Ambulatory Anesthesia: A Comparison of Desflurane with Propofol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We designed this study to evaluate postural stability in outpatients after either desflurane or propofol anesthesia. After IRB approval, 120 consenting women undergoing gynecological laparoscopic procedures were randomly assigned to receive either desflurane or propofol-based general anesthesia. After surgery, patients' postural stability was measured as body sway velocity by using a computerized force platform in the following conditions: 1) standing on a firm surface with eyes open versus closed and 2) standing on a foam surface with eyes open versus closed. These measurements were made before anesthesia, immediately after the patient achieved a Post-Anesthesia Discharge Score of 9, and at actual discharge home. At the time patients first achieved a Post-Anesthesia Discharge Score of 9, the body sway in the Propofol group was significantly more than in the Desflurane group when patients were asked to stand on a foam surface with eyes closed (testing the ability of using vestibular information for balance control). We concluded that the desflurane-based anesthetic was associated with better postural control than the propofol-based anesthetic in the early recovery period after outpatient gynecological laparoscopic procedures. IMPLICATIONS: The residual effects of the short-acting general anesthetics desflurane and propofol on patient's balance function during recovery after surgery were assessed with a computerized force platform. The results showed that desflurane seemed to be associated with better postural control than propofol in the early recovery period.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".