• Ld Mishra, Sk Pradhan, and Cs Pradhan.
• Professor & Head, Division of Neuroanaesthesia, Department of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India.
• J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Jan 1; 27 (1): 59-61.

BackgroundOften conventional Inhalational agents are used for maintenance of anaesthesia in spine surgery. This study was undertaken to compare propofol with isoflurane anaesthesia with regard to haemodynamic stability, early emergence, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and early assessment of neurological functions. PATIENTS #ENTITYSTARTX00026;MethodsEighty ASA grade I &II adult patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Patients in study group received inj propofol for induction as well as for maintenance along with N(2)O+O(2) and the control group patients received inj thiopentone for induction and N(2)O+O(2)+isoflurane for maintenance. BIS monitoring was used for titrating the anaesthetic dose adjustments in all patients. All patients received fentanyl boluses for intraoperative analgesia and atracurium as muscle relaxant. Statistical data containing haemodynamic parameters, PONV, emergence time, dose of drug consumed & quality of surgical field were recorded and compared using student t' test and Chi square test.ResultsThe haemodynamic stability was coparable in both the groups. The quality of surgical field were better in study group. Though there was no significant difference in the recovery profile (8.3% Vs 9.02%) between both the groups, the postoperative nausea and vomiting was less in propofol group than isoflurane group (25%Vs60%). The anaesthesia cost was nearly double for propofol than isoflurane anaesthesia.ConclusionHaemodynamic stability was comparable in both the groups. There was no significant difference in the recovery time between intravenous and inhalational group. Patients in propofol group were clear headed at awakening and were better oriented to place than inhalational group.

3 keywords...

hide…