Comparison of propofol with methohexital for outpatient anesthesia

Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic currently available for clinical investigative use. The intraoperative and postoperative effects of propofol were compared to methohexital when used as an adjuvant to nitrous oxide for outpatient anesthesia. Sixty healthy young women were randomly assigned to receive either methohexital, 1.5 mg/kg intravenously (IV), or propofol, 2.5 mg/kg IV, for induction of anesthesia. Both drugs produced transient cardiovascular and respiratory depression after induction. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either methohexital, 6 +/- 2 mg/min, or propofol, 7 +/- 2 mg/min (mean +/- SD) by continuous infusion in combination with nitrous oxide, 70% in oxygen. Use of a propofol infusion was associated with lower blood pressures and heart rates during maintenance. Propofol was associated with fewer side effects (e.g., hiccoughing, nausea, and vomiting) intra- and postoperatively. Recovery times for awakening, orientation, and ambulation were consistently shorter with propofol. We conclude that propofol is a useful alternative to methohexital for induction and maintenance of outpatient anesthesia.     

Wound infiltration with ropivacaine and fentanyl: effects on postoperative pain and PONV after breast surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether postoperative wound infiltration with local anesthetics combined with fentanyl improves analgesia following breast surgery; and to investigate awakening and postoperative nausea/vomiting. DESIGN: Prospectively randomized clinical study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 45 ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for breast surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were prospectively randomized and assigned to one of three treatments during general anesthesia: postsurgical wound infiltration with ropivacaine 0.375%; wound infiltration with ropivacaine 0.375% combined with fentanyl 0.5 microg/kg; and intravenous (i.v.) fentanyl 0.5 microg/kg before skin incision and no wound infiltration. Time to first verbal response, pain at rest, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and ketobemidone and dixyrazine utilization were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time to first verbal response was significantly shorter in the i.v. fentanyl group compared to both infiltration groups (8.1 +/- 4.5 min vs. 15.3 +/- 4.3, and 12.0 +/- 5.0 min; p < 0.05, respectively). Postoperative pain at rest, and nausea and vomiting occurred with similar frequencies in the groups. Ketobemidone utilization in both infiltration groups, (2.4 +/- 1.8 mg and 3.1 +/- 1.8 mg, respectively) was not different compared to the i.v. fentanyl group (2.9 +/- 2.0 mg; NS). There were no differences in postoperative antiemetic requirements during the first, second and third two-hour periods postoperatively. The dixyrazine consumption was similar in the three groups, (0.9 +/- 1.5 mg, 0.8 +/- 1.3 mg, and 1.4 +/- 1.8 mg, respectively; NS). CONCLUSION: Postsurgical ropivacaine wound infiltration, with or without adding fentanyl, demonstrates no differences in postoperative pain relief and nausea/vomiting compared to a balanced general anesthetic including i.v. fentanyl.     

EEG-assisted titration of propofol infusion during neuroanesthesia: effect of nitrous oxide

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol is an alternative to standard techniques for neuroanesthesia. The present study compared the hemodynamic and recovery profiles of 46 neurosurgical patients randomly assigned to one of three different anesthetic treatment groups. Group 1 was anesthetized with a TIVA technique in which propofol was titrated using an EEG-assisted quantification method. Group 2 received a similar propofol-based infusion technique in combination with nitrous oxide. Group 3 (control) received a standard anesthetic technique consisting of thiopental, nitrous oxide, fentanyl, and isoflurane. Significantly less propofol was required in group 2 than in group 1 (7.4 +/- 1.9 vs. 9.0 +/- 1.0 mg/kg/h, respectively). The propofol blood concentration at the first appearance of EEG burst suppression was also higher in group 1 compared to group 2 (5.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 4.8 +/- 0.8 microg/ml). However, 25% of the patients in group 2 were treated for hypotension after induction, compared to none in groups 1 and 3. Hypertensive episodes, on the other hand, were more frequent in groups 1 (43%) and 3 (31%) than in group 2 (12%). Time to awakening was significantly shorter in the control group (6 +/- 6 min) than in groups 1 (14 +/- 10 min) or 2 (12 +/- 16 min). In conclusion, titration of propofol to achieve a burst suppressive EEG pattern resulted in a slower emergence from anesthesia than a standard "balanced" technique. Use of nitrous oxide with propofol produced more hypotension during induction; however, its use improved hemodynamic stability during the maintenance period.     

Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Office-based Surgery: Are the 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists Beneficial?

Background: Office-based surgery has become increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential. However, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can delay patient discharge. Prophylaxis using a combination of antiemetic drugs has been suggested as an effective strategy for minimizing PONV. The authors designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron when administered in combination with droperidol and dexamethasone for routine antiemetic prophylaxis against PONV in the office-based surgery setting.

Methods: Following institutional review board approval, 135 consenting outpatients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III who were undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 20-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three antiemetic treatment groups. Propofol was administered for induction of anesthesia, followed by 2-4% desflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Desflurane was subsequently adjusted to maintain a clinically adequate depth of anesthesia with an electroencephalographic Bispectral Index value between 50 and 60. All patients received 0.625 mg intravenous droperidol and 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone after induction of anesthesia. The study medication, containing normal saline (control), 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron, or 4 mg intravenous ondansetron, was administered prior to the end of surgery. All patients received local anesthetics at the incisional site and 30 mg intravenous ketolorac to minimize postoperative pain. Recovery profiles, incidence of PONV, requirement for rescue antiemetic drugs, complete response rates, and patient satisfaction were assessed.

Results: The recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, ambulation, and actual discharge did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of PONV, nausea scores, and requirement for rescue antiemetics were also similar in all three groups during the 24-h study period. In addition, the complete response rates to the prophylactic antiemetics (96-98%) and percentages of very satisfied patients (93-98%) were equally high in all three groups. However, the antiemetic drug acquisition costs were US $2.50, $15.50, and $18.50 in the control, dolasetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively.     

Propofol-nitrous oxide versus thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for general anesthesia

One hundred and twenty patients undergoing elective operations were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia with either thiopental, 4 mg/kg-isoflurane, 0.2-3%-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (control) or propofol, 2 mg/kg-propofol infusion, 1-20 mg/min-nitrous oxide, 60-70% (propofol). Although anesthetic conditions were similar during the operation, differences were noted in the recovery characteristics. For non-major (superficial) surgical procedures, the times to awakening, responsiveness, orientation, and ambulation were significantly shorter in the propofol group (4 +/- 3, 5 +/- 4, 6 +/- 4, and 104 +/- 36 min) than in the control group (8 +/- 7, 9 +/- 7, 11 +/- 9, and 142 +/- 61 min, respectively). In addition, less nausea and vomiting (20 vs. 45%) and significantly less psychomotor impairment was noted in the non-major propofol (vs. control) group. Following major abdominal operations, recovery characteristics did not differ between propofol and control groups. Delayed emergence (greater than 20 min), significant psychometric impairment, and a high overall incidence of postoperative side effects (55-60%) were noted in both drug treatment groups. The authors conclude that propofol-nitrous oxide compares favorably to thiopental-isoflurane-nitrous oxide for maintenance of anesthesia during short outpatient procedures. However, for major abdominal operations, propofol anesthesia does not appear to offer any clinically significant advantages over a standard inhalational anesthetic technique.     

纤维结肠镜检查术患者舒芬太尼鼻腔给药的效果

目的 比较纤维结肠镜检查术患者舒芬太尼鼻腔给药的效果.方法 择期纤维结肠镜检查术患者60例,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄32～78岁,体重50～85 kg,随机分为3组,每组20例.Ⅰ组静脉注射舒芬太尼0.1μg/kg,Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组分别经鼻滴入舒芬太尼0.13、0.1μg/kg,舒芬太尼均用生理盐水稀释至1 ml.各组均静脉注射利多卡因50 mg和异丙酚1～3 mg/kg,意识消失时置入纤维结肠镜,静脉输注异丙酚50μg·kg-1·min-1维持麻醉.术中酌情追加异丙酚0.5～1.0 mg/kg.于给药前(T0)、给药后2、3、4 min(T1～3)及清醒时(T4)监测平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)和脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO2),记录异丙酚诱导量、总量、术中OAA/S评分、体动反应、检查时间、清醒时间,记录术后恶心、呕吐及嗜睡等不良反应的发生情况.结果 各组检查时间、清醒时间、异丙酚诱导量、异丙酚总量、术中OAA/S评分差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);与T0时相比,各组T1～4时MAP降低,Ⅰ组T1,2时SpO2降低(P＜0.05或0.01);与Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组相比,Ⅰ组T1时SpO2降低(P＜0.05);Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组各时点SpO2差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);术后均未见恶心、呕吐、嗜睡等不良反应发生.结论 纤维结肠镜检查术患者舒芬太尼0.1μg/kg鼻腔给药较静脉给药对呼吸功能的抑制轻.     

Patient-controlled Antiemesis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of Two Doses of Propofol versus Placebo

Background: The role of propofol for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is not well established. This study determines the efficacy of small doses of propofol administered by patient-controlled device for the treatment of PONV.

Methods: Patients presenting for ambulatory surgery received a standardized general anesthetic. Those who experienced significant nausea or emesis within 1 h of arrival in the recovery room were randomized to receive repeated doses of propofol 20 mg (P-20), propofol 40 mg (P-40), or intralipid (placebo) on demand. Study medications (in equal volumes) were administered with a patient-controlled delivery device for 2 h. A lockout interval of 5 min between doses was used. The following parameters were assessed: nausea, vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, recovery profile, study drug administration history, and satisfaction with treatment.

Results: Sixty-nine patients participated in the study. Patient demographics were similar. The average nausea score for a patient in the P-20 and P-40 groups was 25% and 29% less, respectively, compared with placebo during the study period (P < 0.05). This difference was apparent 15 min after initiation of therapy. More placebo patients vomited (P-20, 12%; P-40, 23%; placebo, 56%; P = 0.003) and needed rescue antiemetics (P-20, 17%; P-40, 23%; placebo, 70%; P = 0.001) compared with treatment groups. Sedation scores were similar between groups. Propofol-treated patients had shorter stays in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU; P-20, 131 +/- 35 min [mean +/- SD]; P-40, 141 +/- 34 min; placebo, 191 +/- 92 min; P = 0.005) and higher satisfaction with their control of PONV than placebo (P < 0.01).     

Double-blind, Randomized Comparison of Ondansetron and Intraoperative Propofol to Prevent Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting

Background: Breast surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Propofol and prophylactic administration of ondansetron are associated with a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. To date no comparison of these two drugs has been reported. A randomized study was done to compare the efficacy of ondansetron and intraoperative propofol given in various regimens.

Methods: Study participants included 89 women classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 or 2 who were scheduled for major breast surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Group O received 4 mg ondansetron in 10 ml 0.9% saline and groups PI, PIP, and PP received 10 ml 0.9% saline before anesthesia induction. Group O received thiopental, isoflurane, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl for anesthesia. Group PI received propofol, isoflurane, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl. Group PIP received propofol, isoflurane, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl. Thirty minutes before expected skin closure, isoflurane was discontinued and 50 to 150 micro gram [centered dot] kg sup -1 [centered dot] min sup -1 propofol was given intravenously to maintain anesthesia. Group PP received propofol for induction and maintenance of anesthesia, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl. Postoperative pain relief was provided with morphine administered by a patient-controlled analgesia pump. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, requests for rescue antiemetic and sedation, pain scores, and hemodynamic data were recorded for 24 h.

Results: Within 6 h of surgery, groups O and PP had a lower incidence of nausea compared with groups PI and PIP (P < 0.05). Fewer patients in group PP (19%) vomited during the 24-h period compared with groups O (48%), PI (64%), and PIP (52%) (P < 0.05). The incidence of antiemetic use was also less in group PP (P < 0.05). Patients in group PP had lower sedation scores at 30 min and at 1 h (P < 0.05). There were no differences among the groups in pain scores, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and incidence of pruritus.     

Patient-controlled antiemesis: a randomized, double-blind comparison of two doses of propofol versus placebo.

BACKGROUND: The role of propofol for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is not well established. This study determines the efficacy of small doses of propofol administered by patient-controlled device for the treatment of PONV. METHODS: Patients presenting for ambulatory surgery received a standardized general anesthetic. Those who experienced significant nausea or emesis within 1 h of arrival in the recovery room were randomized to receive repeated doses of propofol 20 mg (P-20), propofol 40 mg (P-40), or intralipid (placebo) on demand. Study medications (in equal volumes) were administered with a patient-controlled delivery device for 2 h. A lockout interval of 5 min between doses was used. The following parameters were assessed: nausea, vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, recovery profile, study drug administration history, and satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients participated in the study. Patient demographics were similar. The average nausea score for a patient in the P-20 and P-40 groups was 25% and 29% less, respectively, compared with placebo during the study period (P < 0.05). This difference was apparent 15 min after initiation of therapy. More placebo patients vomited (P-20, 12%; P-40, 23%; placebo, 56%; P = 0.003) and needed rescue antiemetics (P-20, 17%; P-40, 23%; placebo, 70%; P = 0.001) compared with treatment groups. Sedation scores were similar between groups. Propofol-treated patients had shorter stays in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU; P-20, 131+/-35 min [mean +/- SD]; P-40, 141+/-34 min; placebo, 191+/-92 min; P = 0.005) and higher satisfaction with their control of PONV than placebo (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol is effective in managing PONV with shorter PACU stay and great degree of patient satisfaction. There were two episodes of oversedation in the P-40 group. Hence, propofol at a demand dose of 20 mg seems more appropriate.     

Coadministration of Propofol and Remifentanil for Lumbar Puncture in Children: Dose-Response and an Evaluation of Two Dose Combinations

Background: The combination of propofol and remifentanil may be particularly suitable for short-duration procedures such as lumbar puncture. The authors undertook a two-part study to evaluate coadministration of propofol and remifentanil as an anesthetic technique for lumbar puncture in children.

Methods: The first part was a sequential allocation dose-finding study to determine the minimum effective dose of remifentanil when coadministered with 2.0 or 4.0 mg/kg propofol. The second was a randomized double-blind study to compare the intraoperative and recovery characteristics of 2.0 or 4.0 mg/kg propofol coadministered with the corresponding effective dose of remifentanil.

Results: Effective doses of remifentanil in 98% of children were 1.50 +/- 1.00 and 0.52 +/- 1.06 [mu]g/kg when coadministered with 2.0 and 4.0 mg/kg propofol, respectively. The duration of apnea was longer (median, 110 vs. 73 s; P < 0.05) and the time to awakening was shorter (median, 10 vs. 23 min; P < 0.05) after 2.0 mg/kg propofol plus 1.5 [mu]g/kg remifentanil compared with 4.0 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5 [mu]g/kg remifentanil. No child experienced hypotension or postprocedure nausea or vomiting after either dose combination.     

Comparison of adenosine and remifentanil infusions as adjuvants to desflurane anesthesia

BACKGROUND: Because adenosine has been alleged to produce both anesthetic and analgesic sparing effects, a randomized, double-blinded study was designed to compare the perioperative effects of adenosine and remifentanil when administered as intravenous adjuvants during general anesthesia for major gynecologic procedures. METHODS: Thirty-two women were assigned randomly to one of two drug treatment groups. After premedication with 0.04 mg/kg intravenous midazolam, anesthesia was induced with 2 micro/kg intravenous fentanyl, 1.5 mg/kg intravenous propofol, and 0.6 mg/kg intravenous rocuronium, and maintained with desflurane, 2%, and nitrous oxide, 65%, in oxygen. Before skin incision, an infusion of either remifentanil (0.02 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or adenosine (25 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) was started and subsequently titrated to maintain systolic blood pressure, heart rate, or both within 10-15% of the preincision values. RESULTS: Adenosine and remifentanil infusions were effective anesthetic adjuvants during lower abdominal surgery. Use of adenosine (mean +/- SEM, 166+/-17 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) was associated with a significantly greater decrease in systolic blood pressure and higher heart rate values compared with remifentanil (mean +/- SEM, 0.2+/-0.03 microg kg(-1) x min(-1)). Total postoperative opioid analgesic use was 45% and 27% lower in the adenosine group at 0-2 h and 2-24 h after surgery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive use of a variable-rate infusion of adenosine during desflurane-nitrous oxide anesthesia was associated with acceptable hemodynamic stability during the intraoperative period. Compared with remifentanil, intraoperative use of adenosine was associated with a decreased requirement for opioid analgesics during the first 24 h after operation.     

An investigation of monoamine receptors involved in antinociceptive effects of antidepressants

In this prospective study, we evaluated the effects of remifentanil in ASA I-II patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery. After the induction of anesthesia, patients were randomly allocated to the Isoflurane (n = 22, 60% nitrous oxide, isoflurane up to 2% end-tidal) or Remifentanil group (n = 21, 60% nitrous oxide, 0.5% end-tidal isoflurane, remifentanil up to 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). If mean arterial pressure (MAP) increased >80 mm Hg during maximal dosage of isoflurane or remifentanil, labetalol was administered. At the end of anesthesia, extubation and awakening times, respiratory rate, SpO(2), MAP, heart rate, and adverse effects were recorded. Hemodynamics and bleeding (minimal, mild, moderate, severe) were not different between groups. Bleeding grade increased with MAP >80 mm Hg (P < 0.001). Labetalol was administered to 20 patients in the Isoflurane group, and 10 patients in the Remifentanil group (P < 0.01). The dose of labetalol was larger in the Isoflurane group (1.0 +/- 0.6 versus 0.5 +/- 0.7 mg/kg, P < 0.05). Time to extubation did not differ, whereas time to follow commands was shorter in Remifentanil patients (16 +/- 8 versus 10 +/- 2 min, P < 0.01). No adverse effects occurred in the early postoperative period. IMPLICATIONS: In patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery, balanced anesthesia with remifentanil (0.22 +/- 0.17 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) provides faster awakening time, as compared with large-dose volatile-based anesthesia, without the risk of postoperative opioid respiratory depression.     

The effect of promethazine on postoperative pain: a comparison of preoperative, postoperative, and placebo administration in patients following total abdominal hysterectomy

BACKGROUND: Histamine receptors are involved in the development of inflammatory pain and hyperalgesia, and the use of antihistamines is advocated as an alternative for pain therapy and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We investigated the influence of timing of promethazine administration on postoperative pain outcomes. METHODS: Ninety female patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy were randomly divided into three groups. All individuals received infusions of promethazine and normal saline before anaesthesia induction, and postoperatively the Pre group received promethazine 0.1 mg kg(-1) before anaesthesia and saline postoperatively, and the Post group received saline before anaesthesia and promethazine 0.1 mg kg(-1) postoperatively, while the Control group received two equivalent volumes of saline. Patients were treated using patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA). The primary endpoint was pain intensity and morphine consumption. The secondary endpoint was postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Postoperative morphine usage was significantly lower in the Pre group (24.1 +/- 3.9 mg) relative to the Post (30.0 +/- 4.6 mg) and Control groups (32.1 +/- 4.8 mg) during the first 24 h postoperatively (P<0.05). The number and incidence of patients suffering from postoperative nausea in the first 24 h was six (21%), seven (23%), and 15 (47%) in the Pre, Post, and Control groups, respectively (P<0.05). The number and incidence of patients vomiting in the first 24 h was three (10%), two (7%), and 10 (32%) in the Pre, Post, and Control groups, respectively (P<0.05). The number of patients asking for rescue antiemetic in the first 24 h was one (3%), two (7%), and seven (22%) in the Pre, Post, and Control groups, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that preoperative administration of promethazine 0.1 mg kg(-1) reduces postoperative morphine consumption compared with postoperative and placebo administration, and that use of promethazine reduces PONV and the number of patients asking for rescue antiemetic in the first 24 h after surgery when compared with placebo.     

Intramuscular ephedrine reduces emesis during the first three hours after abdominal hysterectomy

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that intramuscularly administered ephedrine prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ephedrine is cheap, and for this indication poorly documented. METHODS: One hundred and nine patients undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy under general anaesthesia were studied in a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Ten minutes before the end of the procedure patients received either ephedrine 0.5 mg/kg i.m. or placebo. The patients were closely observed for 24 h for postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV) and received a standardized two-step antiemetic treatment of i.v. metoclopramide 10 mg, supplemented with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. if needed. RESULTS: The ephedrine treated patients had significantly less nausea, retching and vomiting, and need of antiemetic rescue during the first 3 h postoperatively compared with the placebo patients. No difference between the groups was evident in the 3-24 h postoperative observation period. All the patients with PONV during 0-3 h experienced PONV in the 3-24 h period. Treatment or prophylaxis with one drug was less efficient than two or more drugs combined. No significant differences in hypotension, tachycardia or other side-effects between the groups were noted. CONCLUSION: Ephedrine 0.5 mg/kg i.m. administered at the end of abdominal hysterectomy has a significant antiemetic effect during the first 3 h after administration with no evident side-effects.     

Comparison of the Costs and Recovery Profiles of Three Anesthetic Techniques for Ambulatory Anorectal Surgery

Background: Given the current practice environment, it is important to determine the anesthetic technique with the highest patient acceptance and lowest associated costs. The authors compared three commonly used anesthetic techniques for anorectal procedures in the ambulatory setting.

Methods: Ninety-three consenting adult outpatients undergoing anorectal surgery were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups: group 1 received local infiltration with a 30-ml mixture containing 15 ml lidocaine, 2%, and 15 ml bupivacaine, 0.5%, with epinephrine (1:200,000) in combination with intravenous sedation using a propofol infusion, 25-100 [mu]g [middle dot] kg-1 [middle dot] min-1; group 2 received a spinal subarachnoid block with a combination of 30 mg lidocaine and 20 [mu]g fentanyl with midazolam, 1-2-mg intravenous bolus doses; and group 3 received general anesthesia with 2.5 mg/kg propofol administered intravenously and 0.5-2% sevoflurane in combination with 65% nitrous oxide. In groups 2 and 3, the surgeon also administered 10 ml of the previously described local anesthetic mixture at the surgical site before the skin incision.

Results: The mean costs were significantly decreased in group 1 ($69 +/- 20 compared with $104 +/- 18 and $145 +/- 25 in groups 2 and 3, respectively) because both intraoperative and recovery costs were lowest (P < 0.05). Although the surgical time did not differ among the three groups, the anesthesia time and times to oral intake and home-readiness were significantly shorter in group 1 (vs. groups 2 and 3). There was no significant difference among the three groups with respect to the postoperative side effects or unanticipated hospitalizations. However, the need for pain medication was less in groups 1 and 2 (19% and 19%vs. 45% for group 3;P < 0.05). Patients in group 1 had no complaints of nausea (vs. 3% and 26% in groups 2 and 3, respectively). More patients in group 1 (68%) were highly satisfied with the care they received than in groups 2 (58%) and 3 (39%).     

Comparison of the costs and recovery profiles of three anesthetic techniques for ambulatory anorectal surgery

BACKGROUND: Given the current practice environment, it is important to determine the anesthetic technique with the highest patient acceptance and lowest associated costs. The authors compared three commonly used anesthetic techniques for anorectal procedures in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Ninety-three consenting adult outpatients undergoing anorectal surgery were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups: group 1 received local infiltration with a 30-ml mixture containing 15 ml lidocaine, 2%, and 15 ml bupivacaine, 0.5%, with epinephrine (1:200,000) in combination with intravenous sedation using a propofol infusion, 25-100 microg. kg-1. min-1; group 2 received a spinal subarachnoid block with a combination of 30 mg lidocaine and 20 microg fentanyl with midazolam, 1-2-mg intravenous bolus doses; and group 3 received general anesthesia with 2.5 mg/kg propofol administered intravenously and 0.5-2% sevoflurane in combination with 65% nitrous oxide. In groups 2 and 3, the surgeon also administered 10 ml of the previously described local anesthetic mixture at the surgical site before the skin incision. RESULTS: The mean costs were significantly decreased in group 1 ($69 +/- 20 compared with $104 +/- 18 and $145 +/- 25 in groups 2 and 3, respectively) because both intraoperative and recovery costs were lowest (P < 0.05). Although the surgical time did not differ among the three groups, the anesthesia time and times to oral intake and home-readiness were significantly shorter in group 1 (vs. groups 2 and 3). There was no significant difference among the three groups with respect to the postoperative side effects or unanticipated hospitalizations. However, the need for pain medication was less in groups 1 and 2 (19% and 19% vs. 45% for group 3; P < 0.05). Patients in group 1 had no complaints of nausea (vs. 3% and 26% in groups 2 and 3, respectively). More patients in group 1 (68%) were highly satisfied with the care they received than in groups 2 (58%) and 3 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of local anesthesia with sedation is the most cost-effective technique for anorectal surgery in the ambulatory setting.     

Propofol versus thiamylal-enflurane anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether propofol anesthesia differs from thiamylal-enflurane anesthesia in induction characteristics, intraoperative hemodynamics, postoperative side effects, and postoperative psychomotor function recovery. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, two-group study. SETTING: A large university hospital with gynecologic outpatient operations performed in an integrated operating room suite. PATIENTS: Sixty adult women (ASA physical status I or II) undergoing an outpatient gynecologic laparoscopic operation with an anesthesia time of approximately 60 minutes. INTERVENTIONS: No pharmacologic premedication. Pretreatment with intravenous droperidol 0.6 mg and sufentanil 0.2 micrograms/kg before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with either thiamylal 4 mg/kg (Group 1) or propofol 2.5 mg/kg (Group 2). Anesthesia was maintained with either nitrous oxide (N2O) and enflurane, 2-0.5% inspired concentrations; (Group 1) or with a continuous infusion of propofol 200-100 micrograms/kg/min and N2O (Group 2). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In psychomotor function tests (Trieger dot test and p-deletion test) administered preoperatively and postoperatively, no difference was found between the groups. No difference was found in induction time, although significantly more patients reported pain after the propofol injection, or in intraoperative hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure and heart rate). Immediate recovery time (emergence from anesthesia) and intermediate recovery time (ambulation, oral intake, and discharge time) were significantly shorter after propofol anesthesia. Fewer postoperative side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, were reported after propofol anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Induction and maintenance of anesthesia with propofol were comparable to those with thiamylal-enflurane, except patients experienced more pain on injection after propofol. Both immediate and intermediate recovery were more rapid after propofol anesthesia compared with enflurane-based anesthesia.     

Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol vs. propofol/N2O anesthesia

The authors have compared two groups of 31 patients each, undergone an anaesthesia with propofol-O2/N2O (group I) and propofol-O2/air (group II). The average anaesthetic dosage and the neuromuscular recovery time have been valued, keeping constant the dose of analgesic. The average consumption of propofol (except the inductive dose of 2 mg/kg) was 7.41 +/- 1.71 mg/kg/h in group I, and 7.47 +/- 1.76 in group II (p = 0.88; not significant) and the neuromuscular recovery time 56.12 +/- 34.55 m' and 49.48 +/- 40.50 m' respectively (p = 0.53; not significant). The cardiocirculatory parameters have been compared at the time of induction, surgical incision and for all the operation time, reporting every undesired effect. The awakening has been monitored until 15 m' from the interruption of propofol infusion. The data obtained don't permit to observe significant differences with regard to analgesia, neuromuscular block and awakening time. Therefore the authors put the question of the real necessity to use nitrous oxide, when it has utilized an efficient intravenous anaesthetic as the propofol has proved to be.     

Vomiting and Recovery after Outpatient Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy in Children: Comparison of Four Anesthetic Techniques Using Nitrous Oxide with Halothane or Propofol

Background: The authors' purpose in this study was to compare prospectively four different anesthetic induction and maintenance techniques using nitrous oxide with halothane and/or propofol for vomiting and recovery after outpatient tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy procedures in children.

Methods: Eighty unpremedicated children, aged 3-10 yr, were assigned randomly to four groups: group H/H, 0.5-2% halothane induction/halothane maintenance; group P/P, 3-5 mg *symbol* kg sup -1 propofol induction and 0.1-0.3 mg *symbol* kg sup -1 *symbol* min sup -1 propofol maintenance; group H/P, 0.1-0.3 mg *symbol* kg sup -1 *symbol* min sup -1 halothane induction/propofol maintenance; and group P/H, 3-5 mg *symbol* kg sup -1 propofol induction and 0.5-2% halothane maintenance. Nitrous oxide (67%) and oxygen (33%) were administered in all the groups. Other treatments and procedures were standardized intra- and postoperatively. Results of postoperative vomiting and recovery were analyzed in the first 6 h and beyond 6 h.

Results: Logistic regression showed that vomiting occurred 3.5 times as often when halothane was used for maintenance of anesthesia (groups H/H and P/H) compared with the use of propofol (groups P/P and H/P; Odds Ratio 3.5; 95% confidence interval 1.3 and 9.4, respectively; P = 0.012). A significant association between vomiting (< 6 h: yes/no) and discharge times (> 6 h: yes/no) (Odd's Ratio = 3.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 12.4, respectively) (P = 0.046) was shown. However, no significant differences among the groups in the incidence of vomiting beyond 6 h, recurrent vomiting, or hospital discharge times were shown.     

The differential cost of anesthesia and recovery with propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia versus thiopental sodium-isoflurane-nitrous oxide anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the recovery room profile of propofol in outpatient anesthesia and to compare it to the profile of a standard technique. DESIGN: A comparative, randomized, double-blind, third-party open study. SETTING: Ambulatory Surgery Center at The Emory Clinic. PATIENTS: Ninety-nine ASA physical status I, II, or III nonpregnant female patients who had been diagnosed as needing breast biopsies. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were given 1 microgram/kg of fentanyl prior to induction. Those in the propofol group were induced with 2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg of propofol and maintained with a 100 to 200 microgram/kg/min infusion of propofol with nitrous oxide (N2O) in oxygen (O2). In the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group, patients were induced with 4.0 to 5.0 mg/kg of thiopental sodium and maintained with isoflurane and N2O in O2. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Recovery from anesthesia was assessed by an evaluator who was unaware of the anesthetic technique used for each patient. Immediate recovery time was measured in terms of awakening, response to verbal command, and orientation to time and place. A brief postoperative follow-up questionnaire was completed to assess the patients' subjective feelings regarding their ability to eat, concentrate, and resume normal activities. In the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group, 15 of 50 patients (30%) had nausea and vomiting, but in the propofol group, only 4 of 49 patients (8.1%) had nausea and vomiting (p less than 0.01). The latter group resumed normal activity (i.e., reading and watching television) 7.93 +/- 0.76 hours postanesthesia, whereas the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group resumed normal activity 17.02 +/- 1.21 hours postanesthesia (p less than 0.001). Patients in the propofol group returned to work in an average of 1.5 +/- 0.09 days, compared with 2.0 +/- 0.09 days for the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group (p less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The propofol group needed less nursing care and returned to more productive activity earlier than did the thiopental sodium-isoflurane group.