MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042861349 · doi:10.1159/000507892

The Effectiveness and Safety of General and Spinal Anesthesia on Systemic Inflammatory Response in Patients with Tumor-Type Total Knee Arthroplasty

2020· article· en· W3042861349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qiang Wang, Fei Lin, Bin Huang, Ling Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology Research and Treatment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaOsteoarthritisWOMACSurgeryGroup BPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The anesthesia procedure in tumor-type total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may contribute to systemic inflammatory response. Therefore, we aim to investigate the effectiveness and safety of general and spinal anesthesia in patients with tumor-type TKA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with tumors around the knee undergoing primary unilateral TKA were randomly divided into the general anesthesia group (n = 13) and spinal anesthesia group (n = 12). Knee joint HSS scores and Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC osteoarthritis) were recorded before surgery and 12 months after surgery. Visual analogue scale, C-reactive protein (CPR), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interleukin-8 (IL-8) concentration were measured preoperatively (T0), on the day of the operation (T1), and on the first day (T2) after the operation. Complications in the two groups were recorded. RESULTS: The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, tourniquet time, and complication rate were not significantly different between the general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia groups (all p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in CPR (7.6 ± 3.1, 8.1 ± 4.1, 91.3 ± 24.2 vs. 7.1 ± 2.9, 7.6 ± 3.8, 85.1 ± 19.3 pg/mL, respectively), IL-8 (12.2 ± 6.6, 13.4 ± 7.3, 19.2 ± 10.5 vs. 11.9 ± 5.7, 12.9 ± 8.6, 22.2 ± 12.4 pg/mL, respectively), and TNF-α (2.5 ± 1.7, 2.2 ± 1.9, 2.8 ± 2.1 vs. 2.4 ± 1.3, 2.7 ± 2.1, 2.9 ± 1.6 pg/mL, respectively) between the two groups at T0, T1, and T2 (all p > 0.05). There were no statistical differences in pre- and postoperative HSS knee scores (39.78 ± 11.3, 90.24 ± 15.3 vs. 42.68 ± 12.5, 91.21 ± 16.3) and WOMAC indexes (49.89 ± 7.9, 25.12 ± 6.2 vs. 51.3 ± 8.3, 23.15 ± 5.3) between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: General anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in patients with tumor-type TKA had the same effectiveness and safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology Research and TreatmentSame topicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune ResponseFrench-language works237,207