Analysis of effectiveness and safety of cisatracurium infusion during laparoscopic abdominal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of different infusion modes of cisatracurium in laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, 90 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominal surgery at Shanghai Civil Aviation Hospital (2019–2020) were allocated to either continuous ( n = 45) or intermittent ( n = 45) cisatracurium infusion groups. Operation time, dosage of cisatracurium, time of onset, lack of muscle relaxant occurrences, extubation time, recovery index (TOF T1 recovery from 25% to 75%), TOF70% (drug withdrawal to TOF recovery time for 70%), TOF90% (drug withdrawal to TOF recovery time for 90%), mean arterial pressure and heart rate during anesthesia and induction, and occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results While onset time ( P = 0.102) and operation duration ( P = 0.946) were comparable between groups, the continuous infusion group demonstrated significant advantages: fewer inadequate relaxation episodes ( P = 0.003), lower total cisatracurium requirements ( P < 0.001), and faster recovery (recovery index, TOF70%, and TOF90%; all P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in mean arterial pressure and heart rate during the anesthesia and induction between the two groups ( P = 0.314, P = 0.462 and P = 0.205, P = 0.521). Meanwhile, extubation times ( P = 0.095) and adverse event rates ( P = 0.214) showed no significant differences. Conclusions Compared with intermittent infusion, continuous infusion of cisatracurium provides better muscle relaxation effect with reduced cisatracurium consumption and faster recovery, without increasing the risk of residual muscle relaxation or adverse reactions in this study, suggesting a favorable safety in laparoscopic abdominal surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".