<scp>POCD</scp> in patients receiving total knee replacement under deep vs light anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Clinical observation, as well as randomized controlled trials, indicated an increasing rate of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) with increasing depth of general anesthesia. However, the findings are subject to bias due to varying degree of analgesia. In this trial, we compared the rate of POCD between patients receiving light versus high anesthesia while holding analgesia comparable using nerve block. Methods Elderly patients (≧60 years) receiving elective total knee replacement were randomized to receive the surgery under general anesthesia at BIS 40–50 (LOBIS group) or BIS 55–65 (HIBIS group). The femoral nerve and the sciatic nerve were blocked under ultrasonic guidance in all patients before induction. Cognitive performance was assessed with Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) at the baseline and 1d, 3d, and 7d after the surgery. POCD was defined by Z score of >1.96 using cross‐reference. The extubation time and recovery time were also compared. Results A total of 66 patients were randomized; 60 (n = 30 per group) completed trial as the protocol specified. POCD occurred in six patients (20%) in the LOBIS group vs. in one patient (3.3%) in the HIBIS group (Figure , p = .04). In all seven cases, the diagnosis of POCD was based on MoCA assessment on 1d after the surgery. Assessment in 3d and 7d after surgery did not reveal POCD in any case. Extubation time was longer in the LOBIS group (12.16 ± 2.58 vs. 5.77 ± 3.01 min in the HIBIS group (p < .001)). The time of comeback of directional ability was 13.47 ± 3.14 and 6.17 ± 3.23 min in the LOBIS and HIBIS groups, respectively (p < .001). Conclusions In elderly patients receiving a total knee replacement, lighter anesthesia could reduce the rate of POCD with complete analgesia during surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".