• N Nathan, A Peyclit, A Lahrimi, and P Feiss.
• Department of Anaesthesia, CHU Dupuytren, Limoges, France.
• Can J Anaesth. 1998 Dec 1; 45 (12): 1148-50.

PurposeTo analyse the cost-efficiency ratio of sevoflurane compared with propofol for gynaecological ambulatory anaesthesia.MethodsIn a prospective randomised study 52 ASA I patients scheduled for ambulatory pregnancy termination were premedicated with lorazepam and received alfentanil prior to anaesthesia induction with propofol (group P, n = 26) or with sevoflurane 8% (group S, n = 26) using the single breath vital capacity technique. Anaesthesia was maintained with N2O in both groups supplemented with sevoflurane (group S) or propofol boluses (group P).ResultsThe quality of induction and maintenance of anaesthesia was similar between groups except for the incidence of movement during anaesthesia (14/26 patients in group P and 4/26 in group S, P < 0.05). The incidence of post-operative emesis was increased in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.05) but the patients felt able to perform normal activity after a similar delay (18.4 +/- 2.9 hr vs 20.6 +/- 2.8 hr, P > 0.05). The direct cost of anaesthesia was lower in the sevoflurane group (679 FF, n = 24 vs 1153 FF, n = 2-5 in propofol group) but the weight of uterine aspiration products was higher (293 +/- 66 g, median = 230 g, Range 110-800 g, n = 13 vs 108 +/- 8 g, median = 110 g, Range 60-160 g, n = 12, group S vs group P respectively, P = 0.004). Four patients needed reoperation and ambulatory anaesthesia failed in six patients because of uterine haemorrhage.ConclusionAmbulatory anaesthesia with sevoflurane offers a good alternative to propofol but further investigation concerning blood loss with sevoflurane needs to be performed in gynaecological practice.

46 keywords...

hide…