↓ Skip to main content

Total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011387.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Forsyth Herling, Bjørn Dreijer, Gitte Wrist Lam, Thordis Thomsen, Ann Merete Møller

Abstract

Rapid implementation of robotic transabdominal surgery has resulted in the need for re-evaluation of the most suitable form of anaesthesia. The overall objective of anaesthesia is to minimize perioperative risk and discomfort for patients both during and after surgery. Anaesthesia for patients undergoing robotic assisted surgery is different from anaesthesia for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery; new anaesthetic concerns accompany robotic assisted surgery. To assess outcomes related to the choice of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic gynaecological, urological or gastroenterological surgery. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016 Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to May 2016), Embase via OvidSP (1982 to May 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCOhost (1982 to May 2016) and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1956 to May 2016). We also searched the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry and Clinical trials gov for ongoing trials (May 2016). We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults, aged 18 years and older, of both genders, treated with transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic gynaecological, urological or gastroenterological surgery and focusing on outcomes of TIVA or inhalational anaesthesia. We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Study findings were not suitable for meta-analysis. We included three single-centre, two-arm RCTs involving 170 participants. We found one ongoing trial. All included participants were male and were undergoing radical robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). The men were between 50 and 75 years of age and met criteria for American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification scores (ASA) I, ll and III.We found evidence showing no clinically meaningful differences in postoperative pain between the two types of anaesthetics (mean difference (MD) in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at one to six hours was -2.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.62 to 6.22; P = 0.61) in a sample of 62 participants from one study. Low-quality evidence suggests that propofol reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over the short term (one to six hours after surgery) after RALRP compared with inhalational anaesthesia (sevoflurane, desflurane) (MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.81; P = 0.0002).We found low-quality evidence suggesting that propofol may prevent an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) after pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning compared with sevoflurane (MD -3.90, 95% CI -6.34 to -1.46; P = 0.002) with increased IOP from baseline to 30 minutes in steep Trendelenburg. However, it is unclear whether this surrogate outcome translates directly to clinical avoidance of ocular complications during surgery. No studies addressed the secondary outcomes of adverse effects, all-cause mortality, respiratory or circulatory complications, cognitive dysfunction, length of stay or costs. Overall the quality of evidence was low to very low, as all studies were small, single-centre trials providing unclear descriptions of methods. It is unclear which anaesthetic technique is superior - TIVA or inhalational - for transabdominal robotic assisted surgery in urology, gynaecology and gastroenterology, as existing evidence is scarce, is of low quality and has been generated from exclusively male patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy.An ongoing trial, which includes participants of both genders with a focus on quality of recovery, might have an impact on future evidence related to this topic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 19%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Postgraduate 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 32 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 40 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,860,177
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,299
of 9,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,376
of 257,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#194
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.