Perioperative Complications and Anesthesia Practices in Managing Patients With Quadriplegia Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quadriplegia is associated with a multitude of health complications affecting numerous organ systems. Complications during the perioperative periods are not uncommon in this patient population due to abnormal responses to surgical stressors. Such complications include autonomic dysreflexia, cardiac ischemia, and respiratory compromise. Currently, there is no clear consensus on the ideal technique for perioperative anesthesia management in this population. In addition, the relationship between the perioperative complications and anesthesia practices have not been explored in-depth. Therefore, we aimed to investigate perioperative complications in the context of anesthesia that are associated with patients with quadriplegia undergoing various surgical procedures. Our PRISMA compliant systematic review included 12 articles covering the literature from inception to January 12, 2021. The review showed complications being pulmonary, cerebral, but most importantly and commonly cardiac in nature, with many patients suffering hypertension, and many others hypotension. In addition, our review showed that autonomic dysreflexia is common and in majority of patients, it was managed successfully with good recovery. Based on our findings, the use of anesthesia, either general or spinal, can be considered. Future studies are needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in perioperative complications and anesthetic management that are associated with patients with quadriplegia. This review will aid in developing general recommendations based on the information available in the literature to guide perioperative management of this vulnerable patient population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".