Frontiers in medicine · 2026
Efficacy and safety of lung-protective ventilation in neurosurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Yan, Cao Qian, Pang Qian-Yun, Liu Hongliang
Аннотация
METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and WANFANG databases (2000-2025) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing lung-protective ventilation (LPV) with conventional ventilation in craniotomy patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of overall postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The secondary outcomes included intracranial pressure (ICP), pulmonary infection, atelectasis, oxygenation index, and lung compliance. All analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.2.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 523 patients were included in the study. Compared to conventional ventilation, LPV significantly reduced the risk of overall PPCs (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.18-0.48, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%), without increasing the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD)-a surrogate measure for ICP either before dual opening (MD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.04-0.02, p = 0.45, I 2 = 0%) or at the end of surgery (MD: -0.04, 95%CI: -0.10-0.02, p = 0.21, I 2 = 0%). LPV significantly improved lung compliance (MD: 1.81, 95%CI: 0.79-2.84, p = 0.0005, I 2 = 81%) and oxygenation (MD: 40.28 mmHg, 95%CI: 24.93-56.03, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 59%) at the end of surgery, while also decreasing the risk of postoperative pulmonary infection (OR: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.22-0.59, p < 0.0001, I 2 = 12%) and atelectasis (OR: OR: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-0.30, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 14%).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that LPV effectively reduces PPCs (moderate-quality evidence) and does not elevate ICP (low- to moderate-quality evidence). Although conclusions regarding ICP are based on surrogate measures, further large-scale RCTs with standardized measures of invasive ICP and consistent definitions of PPCs and LPV are required to validate our findings.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 523 patients were included in the study. Compared to conventional ventilation, LPV significantly reduced the risk of overall PPCs (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.18-0.48, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%), without increasing the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD)-a surrogate measure for ICP either before dual opening (MD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.04-0.02, p = 0.45, I 2 = 0%) or at the end of surgery (MD: -0.04, 95%CI: -0.10-0.02, p = 0.21, I 2 = 0%). LPV significantly improved lung compliance (MD: 1.81, 95%CI: 0.79-2.84, p = 0.0005, I 2 = 81%) and oxygenation (MD: 40.28 mmHg, 95%CI: 24.93-56.03, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 59%) at the end of surgery, while also decreasing the risk of postoperative pulmonary infection (OR: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.22-0.59, p < 0.0001, I 2 = 12%) and atelectasis (OR: OR: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-0.30, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 14%).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that LPV effectively reduces PPCs (moderate-quality evidence) and does not elevate ICP (low- to moderate-quality evidence). Although conclusions regarding ICP are based on surrogate measures, further large-scale RCTs with standardized measures of invasive ICP and consistent definitions of PPCs and LPV are required to validate our findings.