MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of General Anesthesia and Antioxidants on Cognitive, Static and Locomotor Functions During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

2022· article· en· W4225280492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. В. Мороз, В. Т. Долгих, S. A. Karpitskaya

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Reanimatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaPropofolPerioperativeFentanylCholecystectomySevofluraneVisual analogue scaleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim of the study: to reduce cognitive impairment during laparoscopic cholecystectomy by perioperative administration of drugs with antihypoxic and antioxidant effects under the control of stabilography. Materials and methods. We studied the effect of general anesthesia and antioxidants on cognitive, static and locomotor functions during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We studied 90 patients with acute calculous cholecystitis randomized into three experimental groups (n=30, each group). The control group was composed of 24 healthy individuals. Group 1 patients received no antioxidants, group 2 patients received the combination antioxidant drug (sodium fumarate+sodium chloride+potassium chloride+magnesium chloride) in the post-operative period, and group 3 patients received methylethylpyridinol. The patient groups were comparable in sex, age and type of inflammatory and destructive process in the gallbladder. Surgical intervention was performed under endotracheal anesthesia. Premedication with atropine and promedol was given, and anesthesia induction was carried out with propofol, fentanyl and suxamethonium. Sevoflurane, fentanyl andcisatracurium were employed to maintain anesthesia, analgesia and myorelaxation, respectively. The patients were examined before surgery, 24 and 48 hours after surgery. In the groups of patients who received antioxidant therapy, blood sampling for hematological and biochemical examinations was performed 30 min after the administration of antioxidants. Stabilographic studies and MoCA test (Montreal Scale) were performed before antioxidant administration prior to surgery and after surgery, on days 2 and 3. Results. Neuropsychological testing revealed postoperative cognitive dysfunction on standard therapy which included impaired attention and concentration, executive function, memory, speech, visual constructional skills, abstract thinking, counting, and orientation (21 points on the MoCA scale versus 28–30 points for normal). We found that the pathogenetic factors of cognitive dysfunction included insufficient antioxidant protection, decreased TNF-α and elevated interleukin-18 levels along with an increased level of C-reactive protein in plasma, which manifested as activation of free-radical oxidation processes and reduced antioxidant system and performance of nonspecific resistance. Perioperative use of the combination antioxidant drug and methylethylpyridinol antioxidants reduced the frequency and severity of postoperative cognitive impairment in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Conclusion. The most important pathogenetic factors of cognitive dysfunction after laparoscopic cholecystectomy include activation of free-radical oxidation, reduction of antioxidant defense system performance and lack of nonspecific resistance factors. Adding the combination antioxidant drug or methylethylpyridinol to the standard therapy reduces the intensity of radical oxygen species generation, maintains the antioxidant potential, activates production and secretion of nonspecific resistance factors, preventing the development and reducing the severity of cognitive disorders in the perioperative period. Neuropsychological testing and stabilographic examination allow identifying the risk of cognitive disorders in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and provide a rationale for the use of antioxidant therapy for their prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.315
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneral ReanimatologySame topicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity ResearchFrench-language works237,207