MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379056205 · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2023/62147.17888

Effects of Isoflurane versus Propofol for Postoperative Neurocognitive Recovery in Patients Undergoing Surgery under General Anaesthesia: A Randomised Clinical Study

2023· article· en· W4379056205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B Monisha, Ravi Madhusudhana, MP Sujatha

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropofolIsofluraneMedicineAnesthesiaSedationGeneral anaesthesiaNeurocognitiveSurgeryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Propofol and isoflurane are commonly used in general anaesthesia. Both the drugs are neither neuroprotective nor neurotoxic. In clinical settings, inhaled anaesthetics like isoflurane are frequently used. But, it has been claimed that isoflurane anaesthesia would be a factor inducing cognitive impairment. Propofol is metabolised quickly, primarily in the liver, and its by products are inert. After the initial dose, the half-life of propofol is 2 to 8 minutes, and even with prolonged infusions, propofol promotes quick recovery. Aim: To evaluate the effects of propofol and isoflurane on postoperative recovery patterns in patients receiving general anaesthesia and to determine how they affect cognitive function and memory. Materials and Methods: A double-blinded randomised clinical study was conducted at the Department of Anaesthesia, RL Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Tamaka, Kolar, Karnataka, India, during the period from January 2022 to March 2022. In the present study, 60 patients of between age 50-90 years were included. Patients were split into two groups: group A received an intravenous infusion of propofol, and group B received isoflurane. Patients in both groups had their cognitive ability and memory tested before surgery. In the present study, baseline Mean Atrial Pressure (MAP), Heart Rate (HR), Pulse Oximetry (SpO2 ) and Ramsay Sedation score were comparable in both groups. The novel variables, such as surgery types, duration, and medications were evaluated in both groups. Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were assessed one hour before and four hours after surgery. Comparison of a continuous variable across the groups was performed using the Student’s t-test or MannWhitney U test, depending on the normality of the distribution. A comparison of categorical variables across the two study groups was made using the Chi-square test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Age group of 50-60 years were more in both group A (66.7%), and group B (70%). In Group A, most participants were females (56.7%), and in group B, majority were males (60%). In group A, the postoperative assessment showed a mean MoCA score of 25.6±1.52; in group B postoperative assessment showed a mean MoCA score of 24.17±1.46 with a p-value of 0.001, which was statistically significant. The postoperative assessment showed a mean MMSE score of 26.3±1.58 in group A and in group B, the postoperative assessment showed a mean MMSE score of 24.9±1.4 with a p-value of 0.001, which was statistically significant. Conclusion: The current results imply that postoperative delirium is more frequently present after isoflurane anaesthesia than after propofol anaesthesia.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.336
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.336
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCHSame topicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity ResearchFrench-language works237,207