Cade L, Morley P T, Ross A W
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anaesth Intensive Care. 1991 May;19(2):201-4. doi: 10.1177/0310057X9101900208.
To attempt to justify the expense of using propofol for day-surgery, we have compared propofol with methohexitone for induction of anaesthesia for elective minor gynaecological procedures. Seventy healthy patients were randomised to receive either induction agent and postoperatively they were compared for recovery times, side-effects and patient appraisal the following day. The results showed that propofol was superior to methohexitone for most parameters, with small but statistically significant differences in response time, ambulation time, vomiting and drowsiness during recovery. There were minor differences in patient appraisal the next day. However, it is doubtful whether the advantages of propofol are sufficiently substantial to justify the expense of its routine use in preference to methohexitone and its place is a matter for individual judgement.
为了试图证明在日间手术中使用丙泊酚的费用是合理的,我们将丙泊酚与美索比妥用于择期小型妇科手术的麻醉诱导进行了比较。70名健康患者被随机分配接受其中一种诱导剂,术后比较了他们的恢复时间、副作用以及第二天患者的评价。结果显示,在大多数参数方面丙泊酚优于美索比妥,在恢复期间的反应时间、行走时间、呕吐和嗜睡方面存在虽小但具有统计学意义的差异。第二天患者评价存在细微差异。然而,丙泊酚的优势是否足够显著,足以证明优先于美索比妥常规使用它的费用是合理的,其地位尚需个人判断。