Effects of Desflurane Versus Propofol Anesthesia on Regional Cerebral Oxygenation during Spinal Surgery in the Prone Position

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Very Good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very Good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Very Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion establishes that propofol and desflurane lead to a significant reduction in rSO2 in the prone position as compared to the supine position. It highlights that in terms of BIS, the right and left rSO2 values were not significantly different for propofol and desflurane at equipotent concentrations. Relevant literatures have been cited to support the fact that desflurane and propofol affect cerebral oxygenation differently and the fact that volatile anaesthetics can maintain higher cerebral oxygenation than propofol. The Discussion also illustrates that changes in body position or head rotation and various surgical manipulations can negatively affect cerebral perfusion and hemodynamics. In contrast to previous studies this study concludes that were no significant differences in rSO2 values between the two anaesthetics throughout the prone position.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Comment: Figures are not cited in the text.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments:

1.     The word “region” should be changed to “regional” in the manuscript title.

2.     The word “Medtronic” has been misspelled in the text part of the manuscript.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The prospective randomized double-blinded study conducted on a study population of fifty-two patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position aims at understanding the effects of desflurane and propofol on regional cerebral oxygenation during spinal surgery in the prone position. In the desflurane group, an initial significant drop in rSO2 values were observed from supine to prone position followed by a rise in rSO2 values at the end of surgery in the prone position. On the contrary in the propofol group, the initial rSO2 reduction remained significant throughout the prone position. The study concludes from this observation that sevoflurane and desflurane probably have more common properties than propofol with respect to their activity on the cerebrovascular system and the findings support the hypothesis of the study which was both desflurane and propofol will lead to significant drop in rSO2 values in the prone position. However, no significant differences between the rSO2 values were observed between the two anaesthetics in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the position.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team