Recovery and discharge of patients after long propofol infusion vs isoflurane anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery

Fifty unpremedicated patients scheduled for outpatient restorative dentistry and/or oral surgery lasting 2 to 4 h were anaesthetized with either propofol infusion or isoflurane inhalation. Before induction of anaesthesia with propofol (2.5 mg.kg-1), all patients were given 75 mg of diclofenac and 0.01 mg.kg-1 vecuronium intravenously. Intubation was facilitated with suxamethonium (1.5 mg.kg-1) and anaesthesia was maintained in random order either with propofol infusion (12 mg.kg-1.h-1 for the first 20 min, 9 mg.kg-1.h-1 for the next 20 min, and 6 mg.kg-1.h-1 for the rest of the anaesthesia) or with isoflurane (inspired concentration 1-2.5%), both with nitrous oxide and oxygen (30%). The patients breathed spontaneously using a non-rebreathing circuit. Patients given propofol infusion became re-orientated faster (11.0 +/- 5.5 min vs. 16.5 +/- 7.5 min; P less than 0.01) and at 30 min walked along a straight line better (P less than 0.01). At 60 min, none of the propofol patients displayed an unsteady gait, whereas 11 of the 25 isoflurane patients did (P less than 0.001). None of the patients receiving propofol had emesis at the clinic, compared with 10 of the 25 patients receiving isoflurane (P less than 0.001). The overall incidence of emesis was 2 of 25 and 14 of 25 in the propofol and isoflurane groups, respectively (P less than 0.01). Patients receiving propofol were discharged home earlier than patients receiving isoflurane (80 +/- 14 min and 102 +/- 32 min, respectively; P less than 0.01). It is concluded that propofol allows early discharge of patients, even after long anaesthesias.     

Randomized comparison of outcome after propofol-nitrous oxide or enflurane-nitrous oxide anaesthesia in operations of long duration

A randomized, prospective, comparative study was performed to evaluate induction characteristics, haemodynamic changes and recovery in 60 ASA I-II patients undergoing mainly gynaecological laparotomies with either propofol or thiopentone-enflurane anaesthesia. The propofol group (n = 30) received 2 mg.kg-1 propofol for induction of anaesthesia followed by propofol infusion. The thiopentone-enflurane group (n = 30) received thiopentone 4 mg.kg-1 for induction followed by enflurane (0.5-2 per cent). All patients received nitrous oxide (66 per cent] in oxygen begun one minute after tracheal intubation, and fentanyl (1.5 micrograms.kg-1) four minutes prior to induction. Other drugs administered during or after anaesthesia were similar among the groups. Haemodynamic measurements were similar between propofol and enflurane groups except after tracheal intubation when the mean arterial pressure was lower in the propofol group (P less than 0.05). The propofol group had significantly less (P less than 0.01) emesis in the recovery room than the enflurane group. The propofol group experienced significantly less (P less than 0.05) dizziness, depression/sadness and hunger than the enflurane group in the postoperative period as assessed with a visual analogue questionnaire. We conclude that propofol provided better outcome than enflurane in terms of these nonvital but annoying outcome measures after relatively long intra-abdominal operations.     

Propofol–nitrous oxide versus thiopentone–isoflurane–nitrous oxide anaesthesia for uvulopalatopharyngoplasty in patients with sleep apnea

A randomized prospective study was performed to compare the recovery in 41 patients undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) with either propofol-nitrous oxide-fentanyl or thiopentone-isoflurane-nitrous oxide-fentanyl anaesthesia. The patients were referred to UPPP after examination including polysomnography and otorhinolaryngological examination. The propofol group received propofol 2 mg·kg^-1 for induction followed by an infusion of 10 mg·kg^-1·h^-1 after intubation. The thiopentone-isofiurane group received 5 mg·kg^-1 of thiopentone for induction followed by isoflurane (0.5–2%) after intubation. Other medication was similar in both groups. In the propofol group the patients had a significantly better oxygen saturation during the first postoperative hour ( P < 0.05), and a higher rate of breathing ( P < 0.05), indicating a more rapid recovery of the physiologic control of breathing. Pain as measured by visual analogue score was lower ( P < 0.05) during the second postoperative hour compared with the isoflurane group. Apneic episodes occurred with similar frequency in both groups, and they were related to the severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We conclude that propofol is preferable to thiopentone-isofiurane in UPPP operations, because physiologic respiratory control recovers faster and postoperative pain is less intense.     

Butorphanol compared with fentanyl in general anaesthesia for ambulatory laparoscopy

Butorphanol was compared with fentanyl as the narcotic component of general anaesthesia for ambulatory laparoscopic surgery. This double-blind, randomized study enrolled 60 healthy women who received equianalgesic doses of fentanyl 1 microgram.kg-1 (F, n = 30) or butorphanol 20 micrograms.kg-1 (B, n = 30) prior to induction of anaesthesia. Tracheal anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide/oxygen, isoflurane, and succinylcholine by infusion. Intraoperatively, patients who received B demonstrated lower pulse rate before and after intubation (P less than 0.05, P less than 0.01) and lower diastolic blood pressure after intubation (P less than 0.01). Anesthesiologists judged the maintenance phase as satisfactory more often with B (P less than 0.05). Postoperatively, there were no differences in analgesic need. No major side-effects occurred in either group. Among minor side-effects, patients who received B reported postoperative sedation more often, 77% vs 37% (P less than 0.01), which occurred during the first 45 min of recovery (P less than 0.05). Discharge times were not different. On the first postoperative day, more subjects who received B were satisfied with their anaesthesia experience (P less than 0.05). Butorphanol 20 micrograms.kg-1 is an acceptable alternative analgesic in general anaesthesia for ambulatory laparoscopy.     

Effects of propofol and isoflurane on the neuromuscular block induced by atracurium]

Speed of onset, duration of action and recovery time for a bolus injection of atracurium were measured in two groups of patients. In group I anaesthesia considered of propofol, fentanyl, nitrous oxide and oxygen mixture. The induction dose of propofol was 2 mg/kg-1 followed by an infusion of 9.0 mg/kg-1/h-1 for first half hour and 4.5 mg/Kg-1/h-1 subsequently. In group II anaesthesia consisted of isoflurane, fentanyl, nitrous oxide and oxygen mixture. Isoflurane was given upon clinical needs. Speed of onset, duration of action, and recovery time for atracurium were measured in the two groups. No statistically significant differences between speed of onset and duration of action between the two groups were found. The recovery period from T1 = 10% to T1 = 70% twitch response was considerably longer with isoflurane (25 min +/- 6) than with propofol (18 min +/- 3) (p less than 0.01). Results obtained suggest that for adequate relaxation during tracheal intubation smaller doses of atracurium are not needed during isoflurane than propofol administration. Because of the longer recovery period of residual neuromuscular blockade during isoflurane anaesthesia decreasing doses of atracurium and careful monitoring of twitch depression tension are also suggested.     

Intravenous propofol vs thiamylal-isoflurane for caesarean section, comparative maternal and neonatal effects

Several studies on propofol (Diprivan) for induction of anaesthesia during caesarean section have demonstrated its safety, however, its safely during maintenance of anaesthesia is not yet fully evaluated.
The present study was undertaken to compare the maternal and neonatal effects of propofol or isoflurane in 74 term parturients undergoing primary or repeat caesarean section. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups, propofol group (n = 37) received propofol 1.5–2.5 mg·kg^-1 for induction followed by a continuous infusion of propofol of 0.05–0.2 mg 4mD kg^-1 · min^-1. The isoflurane group (n=37) received thiamylal 3–4 mg · kg^-1 for induction followed by isollurane 0.25–0.75% for maintenance. All patients had rapid sequence induction using suceinyl-choline and endotracheal intubation, 50% N₂O and O₂ were used in all patients until delivery. After delivery N₂O concentration was increased to 67% and intravenous butorphanol (Stadol) was given as needed. Patients in the propofol group had less hypertension after intubation ( P <0.05) and this was also of shorter duration compared to patients in the isoflurane group (5 min vs 10 min respectively). Maternal blood loss as well as intraoperative awareness and recovery time did not differ significantly between the two groups. Neonatal status as ascertained by Apgar scores, cord acid base status and the neurological and adaptive capacity scores (NACS) was equally good in both groups. It is concluded that propofol used for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia is a safe alternative to thiamylal/isoflurane for patients undergoing caesarean section and is associated with less hypertensive response during laryngoscopy and intubation.     

Comparison of cardiovascular changes during anaesthesia and recovery from propofol-alfentanil-nitrous oxide and thiopentone-halothane-nitrous oxide anaesthesia in children undergoing otolaryngological surgery

Propofol/alfentanil anaesthesia was compared with thiopentone/halothane anaesthesia in 86 midazolam-atropine premedicated children undergoing minor otolaryngological surgery. The study was randomised, and evaluation of recovery from anaesthesia was double-blind. The children were divided into two age groups: 1–3 years and 4 years and older. Particular attention was paid to EGG changes during anaesthesia and to the rapidity of recovery. One minute after alfentanil 15 μg · kg^-1, the children in the propofol group received propofol 2.0–3.0 mg · kg^-1 followed by propofol infusion 15 mg · kg^-1 · h^-1. In addition, 0.1% suxamethonium 6 mg · kg^-1 · h^-1 was infused during operation. The other children received thiopentone 5–7 mg · kg^-1 followed by halothane (0.5–2%) immediately after endotracheal intubation. Junctional rhythm occurred in 5–35% of the children independent of anaesthesia method, and ventricular ectopic beats were seen in 20% of the older children during halothane anaesthesia. Recovery with respect to times to eye opening or response to verbal contact was significantly faster after propofol/alfentanil anaesthesia than after thiopentone/halothane anaesthesia in the older but not in the younger age group. Furthermore, in the younger age group significantly more crying occurred after propofol/alfentanil than after thiopentone/ halothane anaesthesia. On the basis of this study, thiopentone/halothane anaesthesia is recommended for children aged 1–3 years and propofol/alfentanil anaesthesia for older children undergoing adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy.     

Propofol in urological endoscopy in elderly patients. Comparison with methohexital

Twenty patients undergoing cystoscopy (group A) and forty patients undergoing transurethral resection (group B), aged more than 65 years, were anaesthetized. Duration of anaesthesia was less than 15 min for cystoscopy, and more than 30 min for transurethral resection. No premedication was given. The patients were ASA I or ASA II. Group A patients were allocated randomly to receive either 1.5 mg . kg-1 propofol (n = 10) or 2 mg . kg-1 methohexitone (n = 10) for induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained using incremental doses of propofol or methohexitone and 60% N2O with a face-mask. Forty group B patients undergoing transurethral resection were randomly assigned to four equal groups (PB: propofol 1.5 mg . kg-1; MB: methohexitone 2 mg . kg-1; PF: propofol and 1.5 micrograms . kg-1 fentanyl; PFV: propofol, 2 micrograms . kg-1 fentanyl and 0.1 mg . kg-1 vecuronium). Suxamethonium (1 mg . kg-1; groups PB, MB and PF) and vecuronium (0.1 mg . kg-1; group PFV) were given to facilitate endotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained by infusion of propofol or methohexitone, using a calibrated pump started immediately after intubation. Ventilation was controlled only in group PFV. Induction with 1.5 mg . kg-1 propofol resulted in stopping counting after 62 s and loss of the eye-lash reflex after 84 s versus 47 and 67 s respectively with methohexitone. The anaesthesist's assessment was favourable for cystoscopy with propofol and methohexitone; recovery times were similar for the two drugs in cystoscopy lasting less than 30 min.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Recovery from propofol infusion as the main agent for outpatient arthroscopy

Propofol by continuous intravenous infusion has been compared with isoflurane as the main anaesthetic agent for outpatient arthroscopy of the knee. In 40 unpremedicated patients, anaesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg/kg and vecuronium bromide 0.1 mg/kg and maintained after tracheal intubation with nitrous oxide 66% in oxygen. One group received 3% isoflurane prior to intubation and 0.9% during maintenance, while the other received a continuous intravenous infusion of propofol at a rate of 10 mg/kg/hour. Recovery was assessed by the time to opening eyes, to be able to answer five questions correctly, to recovery of ocular balance (Maddox Wing test) and by comparing pre- and postoperative performance in a paper and pencil test (the p-deletion test). After 3 hours all the patients were fit for discharge. Recovery tests showed no differences between the groups. All patients were satisfied with the anaesthesia. Full recovery took on average 1.5 days (range between 1 hour and 14 days) in both groups. Patients' opinion 1 month after the procedure should be included in every study concerning recovery. Anaesthesia by continuous propofol infusion results in quick recovery comparable with that following isoflurane anaesthesia.     

Propofol auto-co-induction as an alternative to midazolam co-induction for ambulatory surgery

We propose the use of an intravenous propofol/propofol auto-co-induction technique as an alternative to propofol/midazolam for induction of anaesthesia. We have studied 54 unpremedicated ASA 1 or 2 patients undergoing day-stay anaesthesia for minor orthopaedic surgery. All received 10 micrograms.kg-1 or alfentanil before induction, followed by either midazolam 0.05 mg.kg-1, propofol 0.4 mg.kg-1 or saline, and 2 min later, a propofol infusion at a rate of 50 mg.kg-1.h-1 until loss of eyelash reflex. We compared pre- and postinduction haemodynamic changes, complications at insertion of a laryngeal mask airway and recovery from anaesthesia in the three groups. Both co-induction techniques showed less postinduction hypotension and significant reduction of the total induction dose of propofol when compared to the control group. In the propofol/propofol group there was a decreased incidence of apnoea during induction of anaesthesia. These patients were discharged from hospital 2 h after the end of anaesthesia whereas patients in the midazolam/propofol group were discharged after 2 1/2 h (p < 0.001).     

Alfentanil v. isoflurane for outpatient arthroscopy

Alfentanil by continuous intravenous infusion and isoflurane have been compared as anaesthetic agents for outpatient arthroscopy. In 42 patients, divided at random into two groups, anaesthesia was induced with methohexitone and vecuronium bromide, and, after intubation, maintained with nitrous oxide 66% in oxygen combined with alfentanil or isoflurane. Alfentanil was given before intubation (1 mg), as a loading dose before starting surgery (50 micrograms kg-1) and by a continuous infusion at a rate of 1 microgram kg-1 min-1. Isoflurane was given in a concentration of 0.9% as a maintenance dose. Awakening from anaesthesia was more rapid with alfentanil than with isoflurane. Recovery tests were applied in the recovery room. Both anaesthetic techniques provided satisfactory anaesthesia and rapid recovery. All patients but one were content with the anaesthesia. The patients who received isoflurane scored better in the recovery tests in the first 3 h, but after 3 h there was no difference between the groups. The alfentanil group showed a higher incidence of nausea and/or vomiting: 45% compared to 14% in the isoflurane group.     

Effects of propofol on intraocular pressure in surgery of strabismus in children

Propofol was assessed for eye surgery in 20 children. ASA group I or II, 2-14 year-old, randomly assigned to 2 equal groups. Premedication, analgesia and muscle paralysis were similar in both groups. Group P patients were given an induction dose of 4 mg.kg-1 propofol, followed by an infusion of 15 mg.kg-1.h-1 for the first half hour, and then 10 mg.kg-1.h-1 to maintain anaesthesia. Group C patients were given 10 mg.kg-1 thiopentone for induction and halothane for maintenance. The quality of anaesthesia was assessed by monitoring adverse effects, heart rate, blood pressure, the length of anaesthesia, the delay of the first spontaneous breath and eye opening, and extubation. Intraocular pressure was measured before and 3 min after intubation, and 5 min after extubation. The quality of anaesthetic induction and maintenance were very similar in both groups. Pain occurred more frequently at the injection site with propofol (p less than 0.01). Children in group P recovered more quickly, and extubation was possible much earlier in this group (p less than 0.05). However, restlessness was significantly more frequent in group P (n = 9) than in group C (n = 1) (p less than 0.01). Systolic, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in group P (p less than 0.05; 0.001; 0.001 respectively). No significant decrease in intraocular pressure in both groups was observed. The use of propofol for eye surgery in children is acceptable, despite some restlessness during recovery.     

Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol,alfentanil, and oxygen-air: three different dosage schemes

Three different dosage schemes of propofol infusions combined with a fixed-rate alfentanil infusion were investigated in total intravenous anaesthesia. In 30 premedicated patients, divided at random into three groups, anaesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg.kg-1 immediately followed by an alfentanil infusion 10 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 as a loading dose which was decreased after ten minutes to a maintenance dose of 1 microgram.kg-1.min-1. Vecuronium bromide 0.1 mg.kg-1 was used as the muscle relaxant. After induction of anaesthesia a propofol infusion 2 mg.kg-1.hr-1 was started in group A, 3 mg.kg-1.hr-1 in group B and 4 mg.kg-1 hr-1 in group C. At signs of light anaesthesia supplementary bolus doses of 20 mg propofol and 1 mg alfentanil were given. The patients' lungs were ventilated with air-oxygen (FIO2 0.35). The mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures showed no statistical significant differences between the three groups. A significant (P less than 0.01) decrease of the mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures was present after induction of anaesthesia and tracheal intubation. Recovery was uneventful in all but one patient, who had ventilatory depression that responded to naloxone (0.2 mg IV). Awareness did not occur in any patient. The only difference between the three groups was the higher number of supplementary bolus doses of propofol and alfentanil needed in group A (P less than 0.01). In total intravenous anaesthesia propofol 3 and 4 mg.kg-1.hr-1 as a maintenance dose combined with a two-step fixed-rate alfentanil infusion provided smooth anaesthesia and uneventful rapid recovery.     

Effect of remifentanil on the auditory evoked response and haemodynamic changes after intubation and surgical incision

We have observed the effect of intubation and incision, as measured by the auditory evoked response (AER) and haemodynamic variables, in 12 patients undergoing hernia repair or varicose vein surgery who received remifentanil as part of either an inhaled anaesthetic technique using isoflurane or as part of a total i.v. technique using propofol. Anaesthesia was induced with remifentanil 1 microgram kg-1 and propofol, neuromuscular block was achieved with atracurium 0.6 mg kg-1 before intubation, and anaesthesia was maintained with a continuous infusion of remifentanil in combination with either a continuous infusion of propofol or inhaled isoflurane. The AER and haemodynamic variables were measured before and after intubation and incision. The effects of intubation and incision on the AER and haemodynamic variables were not significantly different between the remifentanil- propofol and remifentanil-isoflurane groups. However, the study had a low power for this comparison. When the data for the two anaesthetic combinations were pooled, the only significant effects were increases in diastolic arterial pressure and heart rate immediately after intubation; these were not seen 5 min after intubation. There were no cardiovascular responses to incision. There were no significant changes in the AER after intubation or incision.      

Comparison of different doses of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation

We have compared three bolus and infusion regimens of remifentanil on the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and orotracheal intubation in three groups of 20 ASA I-II female patients, in a randomized, double- blind study. Patients in group 1 received glycopyrolate 200 micrograms i.v. followed by a bolus dose of remifentanil 1 microgram kg-1 over 30 s and an infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 0.5 microgram kg-1 min- 1. The other patients received remifentanil 0.5 microgram kg-1 over 30 s and an infusion of 0.25 microgram kg-1 min-1 with (group 2) or without (group 3) pretreatment with glycopyrrolate 200 micrograms. All patients then received a sleep dose of propofol, rocuronium 0.6 mg kg-1 and 1% isoflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were performed 3 min later. Heart rate and arterial pressure were recorded at 1-min intervals from before induction of anaesthesia until 5 min after intubation. Baseline heart rate was similar in all groups, but decreased in group 3 (no glycopyrrolate) after induction and remained significantly lower after intubation compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). Heart rate and arterial pressure increased slightly after intubation in each group but there were no significant differences in mean arterial pressure between groups at any time. The incidence of bradycardia (one patient in group 2) and hypotension (two patients in groups 1 and 2 and three patients in group 3) was low.      

Comparison of propofol and propanidid administered at a constant rate

So as to compare the anaesthesia obtained using propofol with that obtained using propanidid, 40 ASA I patients, aged between 18 and 50 years, who were to undergo elective orthopaedic or plastic surgery lasting more than 60 min, were randomly divided into two equal groups, one receiving propofol (PF) and the other propanidid (PD). All the patients received 0.5 mg atropine, 100 mg pethidine and 7.5 mg droperidol (10 mg if weight greater than 60 kg) intramuscularly 45 min before induction. Patients in group PF were then given 2 mg.kg-1 propofol over 1 min and 0.9 microgram.kg-1 fentanyl over 3 min, followed by a constant rate infusion of 5 mg.kg-1.h-1 propofol and 3 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 fentanyl. For PD patients, the doses of fentanyl were identical; they were given 10.6 mg.kg-1 propanidid over 3 min for induction, and 37 mg.kg-1.h-1 for maintenance. All the patients were intubated and ventilated mechanically. The usual anaesthetic parameters were monitored at induction, during surgery, and during recovery. Consciousness was lost more quickly with propofol (p less than 0.05), but the corneal reflex returned more rapidly in group PD (p less than 0.02). The time required for a full return to normal consciousness was identical in both groups. The fall, during induction, and the increase, during recovery, of Pasys were greater in group PD (p less than 0.05 and less than 0.001 respectively). Padia and heart rate were lower in group PF after the 30th min (p less than 0.05 and less than 0.01 respectively).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of propofol and methohexital for dental and maxillofacial surgery

A prospective study has been undertaken to compare a new intravenous anaesthetic agent, propofol, to methohexitone in 40 ASA I or II patients aged between 18 and 50 years undergoing maxillo-facial surgery and divided into two groups. Intramuscular premedication was standardized for all patients. In group I, propofol 2 mg X kg-1 was injected over 1 min in a peripheral venous line with fentanyl 0.86 microgram X kg-1, followed by an infusion of propofol 5 mg X kg-1 X h-1 and fentanyl 3 micrograms X kg-1 X h-1. In group II, the fentanyl dosage was the same as in group I, whilst methohexitone 3 mg X kg-1 was given for induction and 4.5 mg X kg-1 X h-1 for maintenance of anaesthesia. The following were recorded during induction, maintenance and recovery; haemodynamic parameters using a non invasive method; respiratory parameters; quality of anaesthesia; side-effects. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t test and qualitative analysis using the Schwartz comparison test at 2%. The following results were found: the quality of anaesthesia with propofol was superior to that of methohexitone during the three stages of anaesthesia. The duration of induction was similar in both groups, but the quality of induction (occurrence of more minor side-effects; p less than 0.05) and intubation was in favour of propofol (p less than 0.05). During maintenance, stability of anaesthesia and a lesser incidence of side-effects were again in favour of the propofol group, in which a slower rate was also found (p less than 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Midazolam-flumazenil vs. propofol in ambulatory ENT endoscopic procedures.

Two total intravenous anaesthesia techniques were compared in an open study of 80 ambulatory patients undergoing ENT endoscopic procedures randomly assigned to two groups: Group I midazolam-flumazenil n = 40, Group II propofol n = 40. The mean doses including induction were 0.75 +/- 0.31 mg kg-1 h-1 for midazolam and 171 +/- 64 micrograms kg-1 min-1 for propofol for 46.3 +/- 17.7 min and 50.3 +/- 24.8 min respectively. At the end of the procedure flumazenil 8.1 +/- 1.9 micrograms kg-1 was administered to Group I patients followed by a flumazenil continuous infusion at a minimal arousal rate (MAR) of 0.24 +/- 0.1 micrograms kg-1 min-1, and propofol discontinued in Group II patients. Baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were similar in both groups and remained so during the procedure and recovery. In patients with cardiovascular disease, large variations (greater than or equal to 40% of baseline values) occurred more frequently in the propofol group whereas large variations in patients with no cardiovascular disease occurred more frequently in the midazolam group (P less than 0.05). Early recovery was more rapid after midazolam (P less than 0.05) whereas late criteria for recovery (maze and ambulation tests) were met more rapidly after propofol (P less than 0.05). It is concluded that with the midazolam-flumazenil sequence, early recovery is faster and haemodynamic stability better maintained in poor cardiovascular risk patients, whereas with propofol, street-fitness is more rapidly obtained, and haemodynamic stability better maintained in good risk patients.     

Recovery after anesthesia with propofol in otorhinolaryngologic surgery of brief duration

This study was designed to assess recovery from total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol for short ENT procedures. Twenty-six patients (ASA I and II) were assigned to two groups of thirteen: one breathed air (Laser laryngeal microsurgery), the second N2O-O2 (FIO2 : 0.5) (various ENT procedures). The induction sequence was exactly the same for both groups: oral premedication with 10 mg diazepam one hour before surgery, I mg pancuronium bromide, 2 micrograms X kg-1 fentanyl, denitrogenation within 3 min, after which propofol was delivered (2.5 mg X kg-1). When the eye-lash reflex had disappeared (time recorded), 1.5 mg X kg-1 suxamethonium was given and laryngotracheal intubation carried out. A continuous infusion of propofol (9 mg X kg-1 X h-1) was started. Surgery began 5 +/- 2 min after the start of propofol infusion. The durations of anaesthesia, surgery and propofol infusion were similar in both groups. To have good surgical conditions, it was necessary to give repeated doses of propofol for 15 patients. Thus, the total dose of propofol was significatively different between the two groups: 24.5 +/- 6.7 mg X kg-1 X h-1 in group "air" versus 16 +/- 3.6 mg X kg-1 X h-1 in group "N2O-O2" (p less than 0.001). Extubation occurred within 16 +/- 8 min in group "air", being more rapid in group "N2O-O2" (11 +/- 9 min; no significant difference). Recovery was assessed with two psychomotor tests: choice reaction time (CRT) and tracing test (TT).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Assessment of recovery following day-case arthroscopy

Fifty healthy patients, aged 15–45 years, undergoing day-case arthroscopy, participated in a study to assess aspects of recovery and mood. Psychomotor tests, including the p-deletion test and the Trieger dot test, were performed pre-operatively and mood was measured using the mood adjective checklist. Anaesthesia in all patients was induced with propofol and a laryngeal mask airway was inserted immediately. All patients received alfentanil as the intra-operative analgesic. The patients were randomly allocated to receive one of two different regimens for maintenance of anaesthesia: propofol group—maintenance with an infusion of propofol 10 mg.kg^-1.h^-1for 15 min followed by 6 mg. kg^-1.h^-1 and nitrous oxide and oxygen (bolus doses of propofol were given if anaesthesia was deemed to be light); isoflurane group—maintenance with isoflurane (inspired concentration 0.5–2.0%) in nitrous oxide and oxygen. Postoperatively, psychomotor tests were repeated every 30 min and mood was measured after 2 h and 24 h. Psychomotor recovery was quicker in the isoflurane group than the propofol group and had returned to baseline values in the isoflurane group by 60 min. The time to discharge was similar in both groups as was the incidence of side effects. There was no difference in mood scores between the groups either at the time of discharge or at 24 h. We conclude that psychomotor recovery is somewhat quicker when isoflurane-based anaesthesia is used for day-case arthroscopy, but other factors, including time to awakening, mood and time to discharge are similar for both techniques.