• E Moriano, C Espinel, A Díaz-Alvarez, M T Barrientos, E Frayle, and J J el Busto.
• Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Complejo Hospitalario de Salamanca, Hospital Virgen de la Vega.
• Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 1994 May 1;41(3):172-4.

ObjectivesTo evaluate postanesthetic recovery and complications in outpatient surgery for which anesthetic maintenance was achieved with either isoflurane or propofol.Patients And MethodsEighty patients were randomly divided into two groups for prospective study according to anesthetic used: isoflurane (group A) or propofol (group B). The patients were undergoing short surgery and in both groups induction was with 2-2.5 mg/kg propofol, 0.4-0.5 mg/kg atracurium, 20 microgram/kg alfentanil and 20 microgram/kg droperidol. In 40 patients maintenance was with 0.5-1% isoflurane (group A) and in the remaining 40 0.1-1.15 mg/kg/min propofol (group B) was used; in both groups 50% N2O-O2 was used.ResultsWe found no statistically significant differences in time until eye opening after a verbal command (3.8 +/- 2 in group A and 4.1 +/- 2.8 min in group B), in time until the patient was able to answer five questions (6.5 +/- 3 in group A and 6 +/- 2.9 min in group B) or in Aldrete test scores upon awakening (9 +/- 1 in group A and 8.7 +/- 0.9 in group B). Nor were there differences in frequency of nausea reported (2 in each group) or in level of pain after surgery.ConclusionsRecovery and incidence of complications after out-patient anesthesia were similar when anesthetic maintenance was achieved with propofol or isoflurane.

27 keywords...

hide…