Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2018
Comparative randomized study of propofol target-controlled infusion versus sevoflurane anesthesia for third molar extraction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chung Patrick K, Dhanrajani Parmanand
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare hemodynamic and recovery characteristics of total intravenous anesthesia using propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) versus sevoflurane for extraction of four third molar teeth.
METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing extraction of four third molar teeth under general anesthesia were randomized to one of two groups. Group 1 received propofol TCI-oxygen for induction and propofol TCI-oxygen-air for maintenance. Group II received a propofol bolus of 2 mg/kg for induction and sevoflurane-oxygen-air for maintenance. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), operating time, time to emergence, nausea and vomiting, and sedation and pain scores were measured in each group.
RESULTS: Demographic data, including age, gender, weight, and height, were not significantly different between the two groups. The MAP was significantly higher after intubation (P = 0.007) and injection of anesthesia (P = 0.004) in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane group, with significant reflex bradycardia (P = 0.028). The mean time to emergence from anesthesia using propofol was 25 s shorter than that of sevoflurane (P = 0.02). Postoperatively, the propofol group was less sedated than the sevoflurane group at 30 min (0.02 versus 0.12), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.065).
CONCLUSION: Both propofol TCI and sevoflurane are good alternatives for induction and maintenance of anesthesia for short day-case surgery. However, propofol TCI does not blunt the hemodynamic response to sudden, severe stimuli as strongly as sevoflurane, and this limitation may be a cause for concern in patients with cardiac comorbidities.
METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing extraction of four third molar teeth under general anesthesia were randomized to one of two groups. Group 1 received propofol TCI-oxygen for induction and propofol TCI-oxygen-air for maintenance. Group II received a propofol bolus of 2 mg/kg for induction and sevoflurane-oxygen-air for maintenance. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), operating time, time to emergence, nausea and vomiting, and sedation and pain scores were measured in each group.
RESULTS: Demographic data, including age, gender, weight, and height, were not significantly different between the two groups. The MAP was significantly higher after intubation (P = 0.007) and injection of anesthesia (P = 0.004) in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane group, with significant reflex bradycardia (P = 0.028). The mean time to emergence from anesthesia using propofol was 25 s shorter than that of sevoflurane (P = 0.02). Postoperatively, the propofol group was less sedated than the sevoflurane group at 30 min (0.02 versus 0.12), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.065).
CONCLUSION: Both propofol TCI and sevoflurane are good alternatives for induction and maintenance of anesthesia for short day-case surgery. However, propofol TCI does not blunt the hemodynamic response to sudden, severe stimuli as strongly as sevoflurane, and this limitation may be a cause for concern in patients with cardiac comorbidities.