Neuraxial anesthesia is less harmful to the endothelial glycocalyx during elective joint surgery compared to general anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Damage of the endothelial glycocalyx (EG) has been described during surgery, but the effect of different anesthesia techniques remains unknown. Perfused boundary region (PBR) evaluated by side-stream dark field (SDF) imaging of the sublingual microcirculation enables in vivo EG assessment. PBR values are inversely related to the EG thickness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the observational study was to evaluate the changes of PBR in patients undergoing elective joint surgery under general (GA) vs. neuraxial anesthesia (NA). Our hypothesis was that PBR will be lower in patients in NA. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients (ASA 1-3) undergoing elective total knee or hip replacement under GA or NA were included in this prospective observational cohort study. PBR in the sublingual microcirculation was recorded in each patient using SDF at two time points - before surgery and 2 hours after surgery. RESULTS: Before surgery, there was no significant difference in baseline PBR between groups (NA: 1.95 μm (±0.24); GA: 2.02 μm (±0.26); p = 0.098). Postoperatively (2 hours after surgery) PBR was significantly increased in both groups with respect to baseline values (NA: 2.09 μm (±0.19), GA: 2.20 μm (±0.25); p < 0.001). In the GA group, postoperative PBR values were significantly higher than in the NA group (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Joint surgery led to significant increases of PBR. Patients in the GA group had significantly higher PBR values 2 hours after surgery compared to NA group. This might implicate that NA is associated with less EG damage then GA in elective hip/knee 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".