The Trendelenburg Position and Cognitive Decline: A Case-Control Interventional Study Involving Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative cognitive decline (POCD) is defined as a new cognitive impairment arising after a surgical intervention. Aspects of cognitive function can be assessed using various validated cognitive function tests including the N-back task, the Stroop task, and the lexical decision-making task (LDT). There is some concern that prolonged Trendelenburg positioning during laparoscopic colorectal surgery may cause POCD. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of time spent in the Trendelenburg position on cognitive function. METHODS: Volunteers were placed in the Trendelenburg position for 3 hours and, then, supine for 30 minutes. Validated cognitive function tests including 1-, 2-, and 3-back tasks, Stroop test, and LDT were performed at baseline and every 30 minutes after Trendelenburg positioning. Cognitive decline was defined per the International Study of Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction trial: a decrease in accuracy from the volunteers' baseline or an increase in response time from the volunteers' baseline by >2 control group SDs. RESULTS: (range 20.9-33). Accuracy remained within 2 SDs at all time points. An increase in response time did occur, and of 15 participants, 3 (20%) showed cognitive decline in the Trendelenburg position after 30 minutes, 4 (27%) after 1 hour, 5 (33%) after 90 minutes, 4 (27%) after 120 and 150 minutes, and 6 (40%) after 180 minutes. On moving to a supine position, 33% (5/15) participants showed cognitive decline. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that Trendelenburg positioning leads to cognitive decline. This may have implications for patients undergoing prolonged Trendelenburg positioning during laparoscopic colorectal 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".