Effect of propofol versus sevoflurane on auditory and cognitive functions: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hearing loss and cognitive impairment are postoperative complications which need more awareness by anaesthesiologists. We set out to investigate whether sevoflurane or propofol would have a negative impact on auditory function, attention, or auditory memory. This is a prospective randomized controlled study which was conducted on patients who were candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia with either the sevoflurane or the propofol. All included participants were subjected to cognitive and auditory evaluation preoperative and 1 week after the operation. Cognitive assessment included: Paired Associate Learning test (PALT) and Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT). Audiological assessment was done by measuring the auditory brainstem response (ABR). Results There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in either age (p value = 0.537) or sex (p value = 0.175). In the propofol group, the postoperative values of LT ABR-I and III were significantly higher than the preoperative ones (p value < 0.001, 0.003), all the postoperative RT ABR waves were significantly higher than the preoperative ones (P < 0.05). In the sevoflurane group, the postoperative values for LTABR-I, III, III–V were significantly higher than the preoperative ones with p value (0.012, 0.008 and 0.009) and the postoperative values for RTABR-III, V, I–III, and III–V were significantly higher than preoperative values (P = 0.041, 0.029, 0.005 and < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the propofol and sevoflurane groups in all waves of ABR on both sides (P > 0.05). There was a significant worsening between pre- and postoperative PASAT scores in the propofol and sevoflurane groups, respectively, with p value (< 0.001) with no statistically significant difference between both groups (p value = 0.906). In addition, there was a significant worsening between pre- and postoperative PALT scores in the propofol group only (p value = 0.01) with a statistically significant difference between both groups (p value = 0.038). Conclusions There was a statistically significant postoperative impairment in auditory function and attention following both the propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia with no significant difference between the two drugs. Whereas, the auditory memory was significantly impaired following the propofol only.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".