Ozdemir 2013.
| Methods | Single‐centre, 2‐arm RCT Setting: training and research hospital in Istanbul Country: Turkey Groups: propofol and remifentanil vs sevoflurane and remifentanil Period: before 2012 ‐ not stated in paper |
|
| Participants |
Sample size: 42 Surgery: robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ‐ urology Included: males scheduled for RALRP with ASA I to III status, 50 to 75 years. Excluded: neurological or psychological disease, allergy to propofol, hypersensitivity or intolerance to opioids or to sevoflurane, severe pulmonary or cardiovascular system disease |
|
| Interventions | Propofol and remifentanil (n = 21) vs sevoflurane and remifentanil (n = 21) Procedure: robotic assisted radical prostatectomy |
|
| Outcomes |
HR: reported MAP: reported SpO2: reported ETCO2: reported pH: reported Aldrete Recovery Score (circulation, conscience, O2‐sat, respiration, activity): reported Nausea‐vomiting score: reported Patient satisfaction: reported |
|
| Notes | No imbalances stated at baseline; only age and operation time reported. No data on comorbidity (known disease or symptoms related to nausea or vomiting) nor on Trendelenburg time Time from anaesthesia to measurement of Aldrete score unclear Power calculation performed on mean difference in pH between groups; however, minimal relevant difference not stated; primary outcome measures: HR, MAP, SpO2 and ETCO2 Conclusion: TIVA provides early (1 and 2 hours) and better quality recovery and fewer side effects (nausea and vomiting) in robotic prostatectomy cases. Prolonged steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum were well tolerated by both groups Funding: not stated Conflict of Interest: unknown |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Random numbers in sealed envelopes |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Unknown how allocations were concealed |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not stated whether participants or personnel were blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No missing data stated |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All planned (as stated in paper) outcomes reported. No online protocol can be found for comparison |
| Other bias | Low risk | Same surgeon and anaesthetist for all procedures ‐ significance unknown |