• Khaled M El-Radaideh and Mohammed A Al-Ghazo.
• Department of Anesthesia, King Abdullah University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, PO Box 953, Irbid 21110, Jordan. elradk01@yahoo.com
• Saudi Med J. 2007 Jan 1;28(1):36-40.

ObjectiveTo compare the conditions for laryngeal tube airway insertion obtained by the inhalation of 8% sevoflurane using a vital capacity breath (VCB) technique with propofol intravenous induction.MethodsWe carried out a prospective, randomized, single blind study at King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan from September 2005 to April 2006. Involved in this study were 80 adult (ASA physical status I and II) patients aged 26-70 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized into 2 groups. An independent observer noted the time to loss of consciousness, the presence of adverse events, time to successful laryngeal tube placement and the number of attempts needed until a successful laryngeal tube insertion.ResultsWith the single VCB method, sevoflurane produced a loss of consciousness faster than propofol did (51.6 +/- 4.4 versus 59.7 +/- 4.9 seconds, p<0.001). The insertion of laryngeal tube was faster in the propofol group (77.2 +/- 20.2 versus 122.2 +/- 33.3 seconds, p<0.001) and required fewer attempts (1.2 +/- 0.4 versus 1.6 +/- 0.7, p<0.02). The overall incidence of complications during the induction of anesthesia as well as during the laryngeal tube insertion, especially apnea (42% versus 0%; p<0.001), was more frequent in the propofol group (82.5% versus 27.5%; p<0.001).ConclusionWe conclude that vital capacity breath induction with sevoflurane produces a faster loss of consciousness and fewer side effects than propofol and efficient for laryngeal tube insertion, but takes slightly longer than propofol due to the prolonged jaw tightness.

22 keywords...

hide…