Khalid Asma, Siddiqui Safia Zafar, Aftab Sadqa, Sabbar Saleem, Haider Saeeda
Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care Unit & Pain Management, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2008 Jun;18(6):329-33.
To compare the recovery profile in terms of time of extubation, eye opening, orientation and mobility and frequency of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) between propofol and isoflurane based anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with prophylactic antiemetic.
Quasi-experimental study.
Department of Anesthesia, Civil Hospital and Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from January to April 2007.
After informed consent, a total of 60 ASA I-II patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were divided in two equal groups I and P. Anesthesia in all patients were induced by Nalbuphine 0.15 mg/kg, Midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, Propofol 1.5 mg/kg and Rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg. Anesthesia was maintained with Isoflurane in group I and propofol infusion in group P, while ventilation was maintained with 50% N2O/O2 mixture in both the groups. All patients were given antiemetic prophylaxis. Hemodynamics were recorded throughout anesthesia and recovery period. At the end of surgery, times of extubation, eye opening, orientation (by modified Aldrete score) and mobility (recovery profile) were assessed. PONV was observed and recorded immediately after extubation, during early postoperative period (0-4 hours) and late period (4-24 hours). Antiemetic requirements were also recorded for the same periods in both the groups.
Propofol provided faster recovery (extubation and eye opening times) and orientation in immediate postoperative period with statistically significant differences between the groups (p<0.0001). Recovery characteristics were comparably lower in group I. More patients achieved full points (8) on modified Aldrete score at different time until 30 minutes in group P. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in early and late periods were significantly reduced in group P. Moreover, requirement of rescue antiemetic doses were significantly lower in group P in 24 hours (p<0.0001).
In this series, recovery was much faster with earlier gain of orientation with propofol anesthesia compared to isoflurane in the early recovery periods. Propofol is likely to be a better choice of anesthesia because of its better antiemetic property that persists long into postoperative period and reduces the risk of PONV.
比较在接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术并使用预防性止吐药的患者中,丙泊酚麻醉和异氟烷麻醉在拔管时间、睁眼、定向力和活动能力恢复情况以及术后恶心呕吐(PONV)发生率方面的差异。
准实验研究。
2007年1月至4月,卡拉奇市民医院和道健康科学大学麻醉科。
在获得知情同意后,将60例计划行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的ASA I-II级患者平均分为I组和P组。所有患者均用0.15 mg/kg纳布啡、0.03 mg/kg咪达唑仑诱导麻醉,1.5 mg/kg丙泊酚和0.6 mg/kg罗库溴铵。I组用异氟烷维持麻醉,P组用丙泊酚输注维持麻醉,两组均用50% N2O/O2混合气体通气。所有患者均给予预防性止吐药。在整个麻醉和恢复期间记录血流动力学参数。手术结束时,评估拔管时间、睁眼时间、定向力(采用改良Aldrete评分)和活动能力(恢复情况)。拔管后、术后早期(0 - 4小时)和晚期(4 - 24小时)立即观察并记录PONV情况。同时记录两组在相同时间段内的止吐药使用需求。
丙泊酚组术后早期恢复更快(拔管和睁眼时间)且定向力恢复更好,两组间差异有统计学意义(p<0.0001)。I组的恢复特征相对较差。在P组,更多患者在不同时间直至30分钟时改良Aldrete评分达到满分(8分)。P组术后早期和晚期的恶心呕吐明显减少。此外,P组24小时内抢救性止吐药剂量需求明显更低(p<0.0001)。
在本系列研究中,与异氟烷麻醉相比,丙泊酚麻醉在早期恢复阶段恢复更快,定向力恢复更早。丙泊酚可能是更好的麻醉选择,因为其具有更好的止吐特性,且在术后很长一段时间内持续存在,降低了PONV的风险。