Comparative Efficacy of Intraoperative Patient State Index vs. Bi-Spectral Index in Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery with Neuromonitoring Under General Anaesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Deepak Singla, Sanjay Agrawal, Priya T K, Anirban Brahma Adhikary, Mishu Mangla
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Intraoperative Patient State Index vs. Bi-Spectral Index in Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery with Neuromonitoring Under General Anaesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Deepak Singla, Sanjay Agrawal, Priya T K, Anirban Brahma Adhikary, Mishu Mangla","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2024.241663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Various electroencephalogram-based monitors have been introduced to objectively quantify anaesthesia depth. However, limited data are available on their comparative clinical efficacy in various surgical procedures. Therefore, we planned this study to compare the relative efficacy of patient state index (PSI) vs. Bi-spectral index (BIS) assessment in patients undergoing elective spine surgery under general anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, parallel-group, single-center study included patients undergoing major spine surgery with neuromonitoring. Patients were randomized into two groups, i.e., group B (undergoing surgery under BIS monitoring) and group P (undergoing surgery under PSI monitoring). The primary objective was to compare the time to eye opening after stopping anaesthetic drug infusions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean propofol dose required for induction in group B was 130.45±26.579, whereas that in group P, it was 139.28±17.86 (<i>P</i> value 0.085). The maintenance doses of propofol and fentanyl required for surgery were also comparable between the groups. Time to eye opening was 12.2±4.973 in group B and 12.93±4.19 in group P, with a <i>P</i> value of 0.2664 (U-statistic-684.50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intraoperative PSI and BIS had similar clinical efficacy in terms of the dose of propofol required for induction, time of induction, maintenance dose of propofol and fentanyl, time of eye opening, and recovery profile in patients undergoing elective spine surgery under neuromonitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2024.241663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Various electroencephalogram-based monitors have been introduced to objectively quantify anaesthesia depth. However, limited data are available on their comparative clinical efficacy in various surgical procedures. Therefore, we planned this study to compare the relative efficacy of patient state index (PSI) vs. Bi-spectral index (BIS) assessment in patients undergoing elective spine surgery under general anaesthesia.

Methods: This prospective, parallel-group, single-center study included patients undergoing major spine surgery with neuromonitoring. Patients were randomized into two groups, i.e., group B (undergoing surgery under BIS monitoring) and group P (undergoing surgery under PSI monitoring). The primary objective was to compare the time to eye opening after stopping anaesthetic drug infusions.

Results: The mean propofol dose required for induction in group B was 130.45±26.579, whereas that in group P, it was 139.28±17.86 (P value 0.085). The maintenance doses of propofol and fentanyl required for surgery were also comparable between the groups. Time to eye opening was 12.2±4.973 in group B and 12.93±4.19 in group P, with a P value of 0.2664 (U-statistic-684.50).

Conclusion: The intraoperative PSI and BIS had similar clinical efficacy in terms of the dose of propofol required for induction, time of induction, maintenance dose of propofol and fentanyl, time of eye opening, and recovery profile in patients undergoing elective spine surgery under neuromonitoring.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
术中患者状态指数与双频谱指数对全身麻醉下接受神经监测的择期脊柱手术患者的疗效比较:随机对照试验
目的:目前已推出多种基于脑电图的监测仪来客观量化麻醉深度。然而,关于它们在各种外科手术中的临床疗效比较数据却很有限。因此,我们计划在本研究中比较患者状态指数(PSI)与双频谱指数(BIS)评估在全身麻醉下接受脊柱手术的患者中的相对效果:这项前瞻性、平行组、单中心研究纳入了接受脊柱大手术并接受神经监测的患者。患者被随机分为两组,即 B 组(在 BIS 监测下接受手术)和 P 组(在 PSI 监测下接受手术)。主要目的是比较停止麻醉药物输注后睁眼的时间:结果:B 组诱导所需的平均异丙酚剂量为 130.45±26.579,而 P 组为 139.28±17.86(P 值 0.085)。两组手术所需的异丙酚和芬太尼维持剂量也相当。睁眼时间B组为12.2±4.973,P组为12.93±4.19,P值为0.2664(U统计量-684.50):术中 PSI 和 BIS 在神经监测下对脊柱择期手术患者的异丙酚诱导剂量、诱导时间、异丙酚和芬太尼维持剂量、睁眼时间和恢复情况方面具有相似的临床疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cesarean Sections Under Spinal Anaesthesia: Comparison of Varying Doses of Dexmedetomidine Combined with 0.75% Hyperbaric Ropivacaine: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial. Comparative Efficacy of Intraoperative Patient State Index vs. Bi-Spectral Index in Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery with Neuromonitoring Under General Anaesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using the Air-Q ILA and LMA Blockbuster Among Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Evaluation of Operating Room Staff Awareness of Environmental Sustainability and Medical Waste Management. Exploring Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback as a Nonpharmacological Intervention for Enhancing Perioperative Care: A Narrative Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1