Propofol as a sole agent for paediatric day care diagnostic ophthalmic procedures: comparison with halothane anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to study the feasibility of total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol in spontaneously breathing children undergoing ophthalmic procedures. METHODS: Fifty-five children (aged 6 months to 5 years) were randomly allocated to receive either propofol bolus (until loss of eyelash reflex) followed by infusion [group P (n=29)] or halothane 3-4% for induction, followed by 1-2% in 70% nitrous oxide and oxygen via face mask [group H (n=28)]. Dose for induction and maintenance, intraoperative adverse events, time to recovery (on an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale, 5 at each level) and duration of procedure were recorded. All children in both groups, were anaesthetized successfully. RESULTS: 4.0 +/- 0.7 mg x kg(-1) and 5.1 +/- 1.0 mg x kg(-1) of propofol were required for loss of eyelash reflex and tolerance of the ophthalmic speculum, respectively. An infusion rate of 8.3 +/- 1.7 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) was needed for maintenance of anaesthesia; 3.4 +/- 0.5%, 3.6 +/- 0.4% and 1.4 +/- 0.4% halothane was needed for induction, tolerance of the eye speculum and maintenance of anaesthesia, respectively. Induction and recovery were significantly faster with halothane compared with propofol [induction - 38.3 +/- 6.6 s (group H)/60.9 +/- 15.2 s (group P) (P < 0.001); recovery 12.8 +/- 4.6 min (group H)/27.0 +/- 23.3 min (group P) (P < 0.001)]. Apnoea, coughing and breath-holding were seen only in group H. Group P had significantly higher incidence of involuntary movements (minor degree) (n=6) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol is a feasible option for paediatric diagnostic ophthalmic procedures with the advantage over halothane of providing complete access to the eye.