Key result
Prone positioning on a Wilson frame does not affect cardiac output versus the supine position.
Why the study?
Does prone positioning on a Wilson frame affect cardiac output or plasma propofol concentration in healthy adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery?
Observational
Does prone positioning on a Wilson frame affect cardiac output or plasma propofol concentration in healthy adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery?
Prone positioning on a Wilson frame does not significantly alter cardiac output or plasma propofol concentrations compared to the supine position in healthy adults undergoing lumbar spine surgery.
Prone positioning on Wilson frame was not associated with cardiac output change in healthy adults; leaves open effects in patients with cardiovascular disease.
The aim of this study was to compare cardiac output and plasma propofol concentrations in the supine and prone positions in healthy adult patients presenting for lumbar spine surgery. Patients received propofol and remifentanil via effect-site steered target-controlled infusions. Cardiac output and plasma propofol concentration were compared during 20 minutes in the supine position and 20 minutes after positioning on a Wilson frame. Cardiac output did not change significantly over 20 minutes in either position (P = 0.37) and was similar at 20 minutes in the supine (6.1 [1.6] l/minute) and prone positions (6.1 [1.9] l/minute) (P = 0.87). Propofol concentrations were similar in the supine and prone positions at 20 minutes (2.55 [0.89] and 2.53 [0.90] microg/ml; P = 0.93). We conclude that prone positioning on the Wilson frame does not affect cardiac output or plasma propofol concentration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leslie et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Lumbar spine surgery. Prone positioning on a Wilson frame vs. Supine position was evaluated on Cardiac output at 20 minutes (p=0.87). Prone positioning on a Wilson frame did not significantly affect cardiac output compared to the supine position (6.1 vs 6.1 l/minute; P=0.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: