The Effects of Intraoperative Sedation on Surgical Outcomes of Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative sedation is often used to facilitate deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery; however, these sedative agents also suppress microelectrode recordings (MER). To date, there have been no studies that have examined the effects of differing sedatives on surgical outcomes and the success of DBS surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study to evaluate the effect of differing sedative agents on postoperative surgical outcomes at 6 months in parkinsonian adult patients who underwent DBS surgery, from January 2004 through December 2014, at one academic center. Surgical outcomes of DBS were evaluated using a simplified Unified Parkinson Diseases Rating Score-III and levodopa dose equivalent reduction at baseline and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 121 of 124 consecutive parkinsonian patients. Propofol, dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and midazolam were used individually or in combination. All sedatives were routinely discontinued 20 to 30 minutes before MER, in accordance with our institutional protocol. We found no statistically significant association between the use of individual agent or combination of sedative agents and surgical outcomes at 6 months, the success of DBS, duration of MER, duration of stage 1 procedure, and perioperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the choice of sedative agent was not associated with poor surgical outcomes after DBS surgery using MER and macrostimulation techniques in parkinsonian patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".