Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of sevoflurane with propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults.
We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to compare the quality and ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion after either rapid inhaled sevoflurane or i.v. propofol induction of anesthesia. Seventy-six unpremedicated ASA physical status I or II patients were anesthetized with either a single vital capacity breath of sevoflurane 8% or i.v. propofol 3 mg/kg, which produced equally rapid loss of consciousness (40.5 +/- 13.9 vs 37.7 +/- 9.9 s; P > 0.05). The LMA was inserted more rapidly in patients in the propofol group (74 +/- 29 vs 127 +/- 35 s; P < 0.01) and required fewer attempts (1.2 vs 1.6; P < 0.05) than the sevoflurane group. There was a greater incidence of initially impossible mouth opening in the sevoflurane group (45% vs 21%; P < 0.05). Once mouth opening was possible, the degree of attenuation of laryngeal reflexes was similar. The overall incidence of complications related to LMA insertion, especially apnea (32% vs 0%; P < 0.01), was more frequent in the propofol group (82% vs 26%; P < 0.01). There were four failures of LMA insertion in the propofol group and none in the sevoflurane group. Both groups had stable hemodynamic profiles and good patient satisfaction. We conclude that sevoflurane vital capacity breath induction compares favorably with i.v. propofol induction for LMA insertion in adults. However, prolonged jaw tightness after the sevoflurane induction of anesthesia may delay LMA insertion. ⋯ In this randomized, controlled trial, we compared the ease of insertion of the laryngeal mask airway in adults after induction of anesthesia with either a sevoflurane vital capacity breath technique or propofol i.v.. We conclude that sevoflurane compares favorably with propofol, although prolonged jaw tightness may delay laryngeal mask airway insertion.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the flexible and the standard laryngeal mask airway.
We conducted a randomized, cross-over study of 20 paralyzed anesthetized adult patients to test the hypothesis that oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position (assessed fiberoptically) vary with head and neck position for the flexible (FLMA) and standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position (including degree of rotation) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, then extension and rotation in random order) for each device. The size 5 was used for all patients, and the intracuff pressure was set at 60 cm H2O in the neutral position. All airway devices were inserted at the first attempt. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was similar for the FLMA and LMA in the neutral (22 vs 21 cm H2O), flexed (26 vs 26 cm H2O), and extended positions (19 vs 18 cm H2O) but was slightly higher for the LMA when the head was rotated (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.04). Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the LMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.0004) and lower with extension (18 vs 21 cm H2O; P = 0.03) but similar with rotation. Compared with the neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressure for the FLMA was higher with flexion (26 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.0001) and lower with extension (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03) and rotation (19 vs 22 cm H2O; P = 0.03). The difference in oropharyngeal leak pressure between flexion and extension was 7 and 8 cm H2O for the FLMA and LMA, respectively. Fiberoptic position was similar between devices and was unchanged by head and neck position. Rotation was not detected fiberoptically. We conclude that there are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the FLMA and LMA. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension. ⋯ There are small changes in oropharyngeal leak pressure but no changes in cuff position in different head and neck positions for the flexible and standard laryngeal mask airways. Oropharyngeal leak pressure may be improved by head and neck flexion and by avoiding extension.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialDo laryngeal mask airway devices attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx? A randomized, controlled cadaver study.
In this randomized, controlled cadaver study, we tested the hypothesis that the standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and flexible laryngeal mask airway (FLMA) attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx. Fifty fresh cadavers were studied in four LMA groups. Ten female cadavers had a size 4 LMA and 10 had a size 4 FLMA; 10 male cadavers had a size 5 LMA and 10 had a size 5 FLMA; 5 male and 5 female cadavers functioned as controls. The chest was opened, and the infusion set of a pressure-controlled, continuous flow pump was inserted into the esophagus and ligated into place. Esophageal pressure was increased in 2-cm H2O increments. Regurgitation pressure was the esophageal pressure at which fluid was first seen with a fiberoptic scope in the hypopharynx (control group) and above the cuff or within the bowl (LMA groups). This was performed in the LMA groups at 0-40 mL cuff volume in 10-mL increments. Mean (95% confidence interval) regurgitation pressure for the control group was 7 (6-8) cm H2O and for the LMA groups combined was 19 (17-20) cm H2O at 0 mL cuff volume, 47 (41-52) cm H2O at 10 mL, 51 (44-55) cm H2O at 20 mL, 52 (45-56) cm H2O at 30 mL, and 52 (45-55) cm H2O at 40 mL. The increase in regurgitation pressure with increasing cuff volume from 0 to 10 mL was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). Regurgitation pressure was higher for the LMA groups at all cuff volumes compared with the control group (P < 0.0001). There were no differences in regurgitation pressure among the LMA groups. We conclude that the correctly placed LMA and FLMA attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx. ⋯ We have shown, in cadavers, that the correctly placed standard and flexible laryngeal mask airways attenuate liquid flow between the pharynx and esophagus.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
ReviewAlcohol withdrawal in the surgical patient: prevention and treatment.
In the literature on AWS, there is repeated emphasis on performing a thorough preanesthesia assessment in patients with suspected chronic alcohol use. Because these patients are difficult to diagnose and to treat in surgical settings if complications arise, a multimodal approach is highly recommended (86). Ideally, AWS should be prevented by adequate prophylaxis. ⋯ The drug regimens must be individualized and symptom-oriented to treat hallucinations and autonomic signs. Dosages are generally larger than those in detoxification units. Other approaches to modulate the neuroendocrine-immune axis in patients with an increased risk of postoperative infectious complications look promising but await controlled trials.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Comparative StudyExposure to sevoflurane and nitrous oxide during four different methods of anesthetic induction.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-recommended exposure levels for nitrous oxide exposure are 25 ppm as a time-weighted average over the time of exposure. The exposure limit for halogenated anesthetics (without concomitant nitrous oxide exposure) is 2 ppm. Inhaled sevoflurane provides an alternative to i.v. induction of anesthesia. However, the inadvertent release of anesthetic gases into the room is likely to be greater than that with induction involving i.v. anesthetics. We therefore evaluated anesthesiologist exposure during four different induction techniques. Eighty patients were assigned to one of the induction groups to receive: 1) sevoflurane and nitrous oxide from a rebreathing bag, 2) sevoflurane and nitrous oxide from a circle circuit, 3) propofol 3 mg/kg, and 4) thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide via a laryngeal mask. Trace concentrations were measured directly from the breathing zone of the anesthesiologist. During induction, peak concentrations of sevoflurane and nitrous oxide with the two i.v. methods rarely exceeded 2 ppm sevoflurane and 50 ppm nitrous oxide. Concentrations during the two inhalation methods were generally <20 ppm sevoflurane and 100 ppm nitrous oxide. During maintenance, median values were near 2 ppm sevoflurane and 50 ppm nitrous oxide in all groups. Sevoflurane concentrations during inhaled induction frequently exceeded the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-recommended exposure ceiling of 2 ppm but mostly remained <20 ppm. Exposure during the maintenance phase of anesthesia also frequently exceeded the 2-ppm ceiling. We conclude that operating room anesthetic vapor concentrations are increased during inhaled inductions and remain increased with laryngeal mask ventilation. ⋯ We compared waste gas concentrations to sevoflurane and nitrous oxide during four different induction methods. During inhaled induction with a rebreathing bag or a circle circuit system, waste gas concentrations frequently exceed National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health limits of 2 ppm sevoflurane and 50 ppm nitrous oxide. Therefore, we recommend that people at risk (e.g., women of child-bearing age) should pay great attention when using this technique.