Trial reportPloS one2025
Evaluation of mechanical ventilation modes in the laparoscopic perioperative period with electrical impedance tomography.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUncertainty persists regarding the optimal mode of mechanical ventilation for laparoscopic perioperative periods. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is an effective tool for monitoring and guiding lung-protective ventilation. This study aimed to compare the effects of pressure-controlled ventilation-volume guaranteed (PCV-VG) and volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) on pulmonary ventilation during laparoscopic surgery.
methodThis trial was a randomized crossover study, with the laparoscopic perioperative period divided into five phases: pre-anesthesia induction (AWAKE), post-anesthesia induction (BEGIN), the first phase of surgery (MIDDLE-1), the second phase of surgery (MIDDLE-2), and pre-wakefulness (END). EIT data were recorded at each phase, and EIT parameters were calculated to quantify pulmonary ventilation performance in both spatial and temporal dimensions.
resultsDuring the surgical period, plateau pressure (Pplat) and driving pressure (ΔP) under PCV-VG were lower, while the oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2) was higher compared to VCV. Furthermore, PCV-VG was associated with an increased center of ventilation (45.1 ± 3.7 vs. 41.7 ± 3.5, P < 0.05), a decrease in global inhomogeneity (GI) (0.85 ± 0.16 vs. 1.06 ± 0.30, P < 0.05), and a reduction in regional ventilation delay index (RVDI) (10.5 ± 4.5 vs. 15.9 ± 5.3, P < 0.05), when compared to VCV. The improvements in pulmonary ventilation were more pronounced with PCV-VG compared to VCV during the surgical period, compared to the non-surgical period.
conclusionEIT parameters reveal significant differences in ventilation between VCV and PCV-VG during the laparoscopic perioperative period. PCV-VG improves ventilation inhomogeneity and mitigates ventilation delay caused by the Trendelenburg position and pneumoperitoneum during surgery. PCV-VG is more effective than VCV in optimizing intraoperative lung ventilation.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR2400089365.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.