• Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg · Feb 1995

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial

    Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery.

    • W S Jellish, J P Leonetti, J R Murdoch, and S Fowles.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL 60153.
    • Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Feb 1;112(2):262-7.

    ObjectiveTo determine whether a totally intravenous technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery.DesignProspective randomized study.SettingInpatient otolaryngology service at a university medical center.PatientsPhysical status 1 and 2 nonobese patients with no significant history of diabetes, chronic cholecystitis, neuropathy, or neuromuscular disorders that could produce delayed gastric emptying. One hundred two patients were admitted to the study and randomly divided into three equal groups.InterventionsIntravenous thiopental, 5 mg/kg, was administered for induction of anesthesia followed by 60% air/O2 with isoflurane, 1% to 2% end tidal, for maintenance anesthesia (group 1). The same anesthetic with the addition of droperidol, 25 micrograms/kg, was given after induction (group 2). Propofol, 2 mg/kg, was administered intravenously for induction of anesthesia and followed by propofol, 50 to 250 micrograms/kg/min, for maintenance anesthesia. All groups received fentanyl, 3 micrograms/kg intravenously, after induction.Measurements And Main ResultsSurgical duration, induction, maintenance, and total anesthesia times were recorded together with eye opening and extubation. Intergroup comparisons of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain, and recovery scores, we made by use of the Steward system. Patients receiving propofol, compared with the isoflurane-only group, had significantly less nausea (4/34 vs 12/34 patients, respectively; p < 0.05) and as vomiting (2/34 vs 8/34 patients, respectively; p < 0.05). Immediate recovery scores were significantly better for propofol compared with the isoflurane-droperidol group. Recovery scores at 30 minutes were also faster with propofol compared with isoflurane or isoflurane-droperidol (5.7 +/- 0.1 vs 5.1 +/- 0.2 and 5.2 +/- 0.2; p < 0.05).

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.