Effects of Anesthetic Management on Early Postoperative Recovery, Hemodynamics and Pain After Supratentorial Craniotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various clinical trials have assessed how intraoperative anesthetics can affect early recovery, hemodynamics and nociception after supratentorial craniotomy. Whether or not the difference in recovery pattern differs in a meaningful way with anesthetic choice is controversial. This review examines and compares different anesthetics with respect to wake-up time, hemodynamics, respiration, cognitive recovery, pain, nausea and vomiting, and shivering. When comparing inhalational anesthetics to intravenous anesthetics, either regimen produces similar recovery results. Newer shorter acting agents accelerate the process of emergence and extubation. A balanced inhalational/intravenous anesthetic could be desirable for patients with normal intracranial pressure, while total intravenous anesthesia could be beneficial for patients with elevated intracranial pressure. Comparison of inhalational anesthetics shows all appropriate for rapid emergence, decreasing time to extubation, and cognitive recovery. Comparison of opioids demonstrates similar awakening and extubation time if the infusion of longer acting opioids was ended at the appropriate time. Administration of local anesthetics into the skin, and addition of corticosteroids, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, and PCA therapy postoperatively provided superior analgesia. It is also important to emphasize the possibility of long-term effects of anesthetics on cognitive function. More research is warranted to develop best practices strategies for the future that are evidence-based.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".