John R. Murdoch

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE To determine if a total intravenous (i.v.) technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. DESIGN Prospective, randomized study. SETTING Inpatient otolaryngology service at a university medical center. PATIENTS 102 ASA status I and II nonobese patients with no significant history of diabetes, chronic cholecystitis, neuropathy, or neuromuscular disorders that could produce delayed gastric emptying. INTERVENTIONS Patients were admitted to the study and randomly divided into three equal groups. I.V. administration of thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by 60% air/oxygen (O2) with isoflurane 1% to 2% end-tidal for maintenance anesthesia (group 1). The same anesthetic was given as above, with the addition of droperidol 25 mcg/kg given after induction (group 2). I.V. administration of propofol 2 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by propofol 50 to 250 mcg/kg/min for maintenance anesthesia. All groups received fentanyl 3 mcg/kg i.v. after induction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Surgical duration, induction, maintenance, and total anesthesia times were recorded in addition to eye opening and extubation. Intergroup comparisons of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were done, as were recovery scores using the Steward system. Patients receiving propofol had significantly less nausea than those receiving isoflurane only (4 of 34 versus 12 of 34, p < 0.05) as well as vomiting (2 of 34 versus 8 of 34, p < 0.05). Immediate recovery scores were significantly better for propofol compared with the isoflurane/droperidol group. Recovery at 30 minutes was also faster with propofol compared with isoflurane or isoflurane/droperidol (5.7 +/- 0.1 min versus 5.1 +/- 0.2 min and 5.2 +/- 0.2 min, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Propofol-fentanyl seems to be a better anesthetic than isoflurane-fentanyl in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery. Through the addition of droperidol to the isoflurane anesthetic seemed as effective, emergence from anesthesia was slower. For middle ear surgeries producing emesis, propofol-based anesthetics produced a rapid emergence with less nausea and vomiting.

Remifentanil-based anesthesia versus a propofol technique for otologic surgical procedures

Otologic procedures require a still surgical field and are associated with a 50% incidence of emetic symptoms. Propofol reduces nausea and vomiting but not intraoperative movement. This study compares a remifentanil/propofol anesthetic to a propofol/fentanyl combination to determine which provides the best perioperative conditions for otologic microsurgery. Eighty healthy patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the anesthetic combinations. Demographic data, hemodynamic variables, movement, and bispectral index monitoring values in addition to anesthetic emergence, nausea, vomiting, pain, and other recovery variables were compared between groups with appropriate statistical methods. Both groups were similar. Times to eye opening (7.7 ± 0.7 vs 12.4 ±1.2 minutes) and extubation (9.8 ± 0.9 vs 12.4 ±1.0 minutes) were shorter with remifentanil. This group also had lower hemodynamic variables and movement (23% vs 65%) under anesthesia. Postoperative pain was mild in both groups, but remifentanil patients had more than the propofol group. All other postoperative parameters were similar. Remifentanil-based anesthesia produces better hemodynamic stability, less movement, and faster emergence after otologic surgery, with propofols antiemetic effect, for the same cost.

Propofol-Based Anesthesia as Compared with Standard Anesthetic Techniques for Middle Ear Surgery

OBJECTIVE To determine whether a totally intravenous technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. DESIGN Prospective randomized study. SETTING Inpatient otolaryngology service at a university medical center. PATIENTS Physical 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. INTERVENTIONS Intravenous 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 RESULTS Surgical 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).