Comparison of postoperative cognitive dysfunction with the use of propofol versus desflurane in patients undergoing surgery for clipping of aneurysm after subarachnoid hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebral aneurysm rupture is a distinct entity among various causes of cerebrovascular accident. Despite the current concept of early surgical clipping to prevent consequences of ruptured aneurysm in good grade subarachnoid hemorrhage patients, 40-50% have postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) on a long- term basis. Here, we compared the effect of two commonly used anesthetic agents on cognitive function following cerebral aneurysmal surgery, i.e., propofol and desflurane. METHODS: We conducted a prospective double-blind clinical study in 70 patients who were randomized to receive maintenance anesthetic agents either propofol or desflurane. The cognitive functions of patients were studied at the time of the discharge from a hospital or at 2 weeks following surgery whichever was early using the Hindi version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale. The hemodynamic parameters, brain relaxation score at the different time intervals, were also studied. RESULTS: -value-0.01). The scores for domains of executive function, attention, and orientation were better with propofol group than desflurane group. Intraoperative hemodynamics and brain relaxation scores were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: A significant number of patients undergoing aneurysmal neck surgery experienced POCD although incidence remained similar in both groups. However, it appears that mean cognitive score and certain domains of cognitive functions especially the executive function, attention, and orientation were better preserved with the use of propofol when compared to desflurane at the time of discharge or on 2 weeks following surgery whichever was early.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".