Luntz 2004.
Methods | RCT, parallel design, single‐centre | |
Participants |
Total number of randomized participants: 96 Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Type of surgery: ophthalmic surgery Baseline characteristics TIVA group
Inhalational maintenance group (propofol/sevoflurane)
Inhalational maintenance group (total sevoflurane)
Note: table of baseline characteristics is not reported. Study authors report "There were no significant differences between the patient groups with regard to age, gender, height, weight and ASA physical status" Country: Germany Setting: hospital |
|
Interventions |
TIVA group Participants: n = 32; 0 losses Induction details: propofol 2 mg/kg, continuous infusion of remifentanil 20 µg/ kg/hour. Atracurium 0.3 mg/kg to 0.5 mg/kg Maintenance details: continuous infusion of propofol 4 mg/kg/hour to 8 mg/kg/hour. Remifentanil at 10 µg/kg/hour Inhalational maintenance group (propofol/sevoflurane) Participants: n = 32; 0 losses Induction details: propofol 2 mg/kg, continuous infusion of remifentanil 20 µg/ kg/hour. Atracurium 0.3 mg/kg to 0.5 mg/kg Maintenance details: sevoflurane end‐tidal concentration 0.6% to 1.2%. Remifentanil 10µg/kg/hour Inhalational maintenance group (total sevoflurane) Participants: n = 32; 0 losses Induction details : continuous infusion of remifentanil 20 µg/ kg/hour. Atracurium 0.3 mg/kg to 0.5 mg/kg. After 1 minute pre‐oxygenation, vaporizer adjusted stepwise up to 8% sevoflurane until eyelash reflex was abolished, then reduced to 5% Maintenance details: sevoflurane end‐tidal concentration 0.6% to 1.2%. Remifentanil 10µg/kg/hour |
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes |
Funding/declarations of interest: supported in part by a grant from Abbott Laboratories, Wiesbaden, Germany Study dates: not reported |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Use of computer‐generated randomization |
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 group |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Relevant reported outcome is for hypotension. Study authors do not report who collected this data and whether they were blinded |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No apparent loss of study participants |
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 | Low risk | Baseline characteristics table not reported, but study authors reported no differences. No other sources of bias identified |