Sarah Soh1, Jae-Kwang Shim1,2, Yoon Ha3,4, Young-Sam Kim5, Hyelin Lee6, Young-Lan Kwak1,2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. 2. Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital. 3. Departments of Neurosurgery. 4. Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Internal Medicine. 6. Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal surgery in the prone position is accompanied by increased intrathoracic pressure and decreased respiratory compliance. This study investigated whether intraoperative lung protective mechanical ventilation improved lung function evaluated with pulmonary function tests in patients at risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after major spinal surgery in the prone position. METHODS:Seventy-eight patients at potential risk of PPCs were randomly assigned to the protective group (tidal volume; 6 mL/kg predicted body weight, 6 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment maneuvers) or the conventional group (10 mL/kg predicted body weight, no positive end-expiratory pressure). The primary efficacy variables were assessed by pulmonary function tests, performed before surgery, and 3 and 5 days afterward. RESULTS:Postoperative forced vital capacity (2.17±0.1 L vs. 1.91±0.1 L, P=0.213) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (1.73±0.08 L vs. 1.59±0.08 L, P=0.603) at postoperative day (POD) 3 in the protective and conventional groups, respectively, were similar. Trends of a postoperative decrease in forced vital capacity (P=0.586) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (P=0.855) were similar between the groups. Perioperative blood-gas analysis variables were comparable between the groups. Patients in the protective and conventional groups showed similar rates of clinically significant PPCs (8% vs. 10%, P>0.999). CONCLUSIONS: In patients at potential risk of developing PPCs undergoing major spinal surgery, we did not find evidence indicating any difference between the lung protective and conventional ventilation in postoperative pulmonary function and oxygenation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Spinal surgery in the prone position is accompanied by increased intrathoracic pressure and decreased respiratory compliance. This study investigated whether intraoperative lung protective mechanical ventilation improved lung function evaluated with pulmonary function tests in patients at risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after major spinal surgery in the prone position. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients at potential risk of PPCs were randomly assigned to the protective group (tidal volume; 6 mL/kg predicted body weight, 6 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment maneuvers) or the conventional group (10 mL/kg predicted body weight, no positive end-expiratory pressure). The primary efficacy variables were assessed by pulmonary function tests, performed before surgery, and 3 and 5 days afterward. RESULTS: Postoperative forced vital capacity (2.17±0.1 L vs. 1.91±0.1 L, P=0.213) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (1.73±0.08 L vs. 1.59±0.08 L, P=0.603) at postoperative day (POD) 3 in the protective and conventional groups, respectively, were similar. Trends of a postoperative decrease in forced vital capacity (P=0.586) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (P=0.855) were similar between the groups. Perioperative blood-gas analysis variables were comparable between the groups. Patients in the protective and conventional groups showed similar rates of clinically significant PPCs (8% vs. 10%, P>0.999). CONCLUSIONS: In patients at potential risk of developing PPCs undergoing major spinal surgery, we did not find evidence indicating any difference between the lung protective and conventional ventilation in postoperative pulmonary function and oxygenation.
Authors: Johanne M Holst; Maibritt P Klitholm; Jeppe Henriksen; Mikael F Vallentin; Marie K Jessen; Maria Bolther; Mathias J Holmberg; Maria Høybye; Peter Carøe Lind; Asger Granfeldt; Lars W Andersen Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 2.274
Authors: Chiara Robba; Sabrine N T Hemmes; Ary Serpa Neto; Thomas Bluth; Jaume Canet; Michael Hiesmayr; M Wiersma Hollmann; Gary H Mills; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Christian Putensen; Samir Jaber; Werner Schmid; Paolo Severgnini; Hermann Wrigge; Denise Battaglini; Lorenzo Ball; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Marcus J Schultz; Paolo Pelosi Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 2.217