Juvin 1997.
Methods | RCT, parallel design, single‐centre | |
Participants |
Total number of randomized participants: 45 Inclusion criteria
Excluded criteria
Type of surgery: hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, laminectomy, other orthopaedic surgery Baseline characteristics TIVA group
Inhalational maintenance group (isoflurane)
Inhalational maintenance group (desflurane)
Country: France Setting: hospital |
|
Interventions |
TIVA group Participants: n = 15; 1 loss (excluded owing to intraoperative complication); 14 analysed Induction details: propofol 1 mg/kg to 2 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 µg/kg to 2 µg/kg, vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg Maintenance details: 60% N2O in O2. Propofol titrated to maintain HR and BP within 20% of baseline. Study authors report mean (SD) infusion rates at 2.18 (± 1.24) mg/kg/hour Other information: premedication with oral hydroxyzine 100 mg. Additional fentanyl at 1 µg/kg at 40‐minute intervals depending on length of surgery Inhalational maintenance group (isoflurane) Participants: n = 15; 0 losses Induction details: propofol 1 mg/kg to 2 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 µg/kg to 2 µg/kg, vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg Maintenance details: 60% N2O in O2. Isoflurane titrated to maintain HR and BP within 20% of baseline. Fresh gas flow of 1.5 L/min. Study authors report mean (SD) concentration isoflurane at 0.33% (± 0.21%) Other info: premedication and use of fentanyl same as TIVA group Inhalational maintenance group (desflurane) Participants: n = 15; 1 loss (owing to sudden vaporizer failure); 14 analysed Induction details: propofol 1 mg/kg to 2 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 µg/kg to 2 µg/kg, vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg Maintenance details: 60% N2O in O2. Desflurane titrated to maintain HR and BP within 20% of baseline. Fresh gas flow of 1.5 L/min. Study authors report mean (SD) concentration desflurane 1.59% (± 1.02) Other information: premedication and use of fentanyl same as TIVA group |
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes |
Funding/declarations of interest: supported by Pharmacia and Upjohn Study dates: not reported |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Participants were randomly allocated to groups; no additional information |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not feasible to blind anaesthetists to intervention groups |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Outcomes assessed by a single investigator who was blinded to participants' group allocation |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Few participants losses (1 participant in desflurane group, and 1 in propofol group); unlikely to influence outcome data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Study authors do not report clinical trials registration. Not feasible to judge risk of selective outcome reporting |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Some differences between groups in numbers for each type of surgery. Note balance of gender, with more female participants; balanced between groups and not a risk of bias within the study |