Volume-controlled ventilation versus pressure-controlled ventilation during spine surgery in the prone position: A meta-analysis

Background: Many studies have investigated a comparison of the potency and safety of PCV versus VCV modes in spinal surgery in prone position. However, controversy about the maximal benefits of which ventilation modes remains. The main purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate which one is the optimal ventilation for surgery patients undergoing spine surgery in prone position between the two ventilation modes as PCV and VCV. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for potentially eligible articles. The continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and the associated 95% confidence interval. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: Our meta-analysis included 8 RCTs involving a total of 454 patients between 2012 and 2020. The results demonstrated that I0B, Ppeak and CVP for VCV are significantly superior to PCV in spinal surgery in prone position. And PCV had higher Cdyn and PaO2/FiO(2) than VCV. But there was no significant difference between PCV and VCV in terms of POB, Hb, HCT, HR and MAP. Conclusions: The PCV mode displayed a more satisfying effect than VCV mode. Compared to VCV mode in same preset of tidal volume, the patients with PCV mode in prone position demonstrated less IOB, lower Ppeak and CVP, and higher PaO2/FiO(2) in spinal surgery. However, there is no obvious difference between PCV and VCV in terms of hemodynamics variables (HR and MAP).

Automated summary

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of PCV and VCV ventilation modes in spinal surgery in prone position. The results showed that PCV had better outcomes than VCV in terms of ventilation parameters, but there was no significant difference in hemodynamics variables.