靶控舒芬太尼和瑞芬太尼在妇科腹腔镜手术麻醉的临床应用

目的比较靶控舒芬太尼和瑞芬太尼在妇科腹腔镜手术麻醉中的临床应用效果。为合理选择麻醉用药提供依据。方法将130例妇科腹腔镜手术患者随机分为观察组和对照组,各65例,观察组给予靶控输注舒芬太尼复合丙泊酚,对照组靶控输注瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚,比较拔管后固定时点的改良评分、术后两组患者疼痛及恢复情况。结果观察组患者拔管后各时间段改良OAA/S评分明显高于对照组,中度、重度疼痛情况明显高于对照组,两组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与舒芬太尼相比,应用靶控瑞芬太尼实施麻醉,血流动力学稳定性好,患者意识恢复快,但术后止痛效果差。     

瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注在老年腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的应用

目的探讨瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注在老年腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中的应用效果。方法随机将接受LC的70例老年患者分为2组,每组35例。观察组采用瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注麻醉,对照组采用瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚持续静脉输注麻醉。通过警觉/镇静评分系统(OAA/S)对麻醉效果进行评定,并比较2组患者的呼吸恢复时间、睁眼时间、拔管时间。结果 2组患者术中、术后各个时间段OAA/S评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者的呼吸恢复时间、睁眼时间、拔管时间均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论老年患者LC时应用瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注麻醉效果优秀,安全性高。麻醉撤药后患者苏醒快,利于老年人术后恢复。     

小剂量氯胺酮复合丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉在隆乳术中的应用

目的：观察小剂量氯胺酮复合丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼靶控输注用于隆乳术麻醉的效果和意义。方法：40例患者随机分为丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注组（PR组,n=20）和丙泊酚瑞芬太尼靶控输注联合氯胺酮组（PR-K组,n=20）。两组诱导起始效应室靶浓度相同,PR-K组于诱导时单次静注氯胺酮0.4mg/kg。观察并比较两组患者麻醉效果及血流动力学变化,记录丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼用量。结果：两种麻醉方法均取得较满意的麻醉效果;PR-K组较PR组诱导迅速,血流动力学波动小,且丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼诱导用量少。结论：单次静注小剂量氯胺酮诱导可安全用于隆乳术麻醉,兼具良好的麻醉效应和经济效益。     

地氟醚复合吗啡快通道麻醉在腹腔镜胆囊切除术的应用

目的 研究地氟醚复合吗啡快通道麻醉在腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC） 的应用.方法 选择ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级LC 患者90 例,随机分为3 组：P 组（丙泊酚＋ 瑞芬太尼）、S 组（七氟醚＋瑞芬太尼）和D 组（地氟醚＋ 吗啡）,术前和诱导用药相同,麻醉维持：P 组静脉输注丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼和顺式阿曲库铵;S 组吸入七氟醚及静脉输注瑞芬太尼,不追加顺式阿曲库铵;D 组吸入地氟醚及静脉注射吗啡,不追加顺式阿曲库铵.术中观察血流动力学波动情况和呼吸恢复、拔管、离室时间、术中知晓发生率以及苏醒期躁动评分.结果 与P 组比较,D 组和S 组的血压和心率波动例数减少（P 〈 0.05）;与P 组和S 组比较,D 组呼吸恢复、拔管、离室的时间缩短（P 〈 0.05）,苏醒期躁动的评分较高（P 〈 0.05）.3 组患者均未出现术中知晓.结论 地氟醚复合吗啡快通道麻醉应用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术对血流动力学波动影响小,术后苏醒速度快、质量高.     

丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉对腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术患者术中血流动力学及术后苏醒质量的影响

目的探讨丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉对腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除患者术中血流动力学及术后苏醒质量的影响。方法选取2016-05-2019-04间接受腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术的200例子宫肌瘤患者,按随机数字表法分为2组,各100例。对照组予以丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼持续静脉输注麻醉,观察组予以丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉。比较2组拔管时间,苏醒时间,拔管后5、10、30 min镇静评分(OAAS评分),以及入手术室即刻(T0)、插管即刻(T1)、手术开始后5min(T2)、术毕即刻(T3)时间点的平均动脉压(MAP)和心率(HR)。结果拔管后5、10 min观察组OAAS评分高于对照组,T1、T2时MAP、HR较对照组低,观察组波动较小,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术患者采取丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉,能有效稳定术中血流动力学,提高苏醒质量。     

瑞芬太尼和丙泊酚靶控输注用于老年患者妇科腹腔镜手术麻醉的研究

目的对行妇科腹腔镜手术的不同年龄的患者采用瑞芬太尼、丙泊酚靶控输注进行诱导和维持,观察此麻醉方式的临床疗效。方法60名ASAⅠ～Ⅲ级、行择期妇科腹腔镜手术的患者,分为Ⅰ组（〈65岁）和Ⅱ组（≥65岁）,每组30例。麻醉诱导,Ⅰ组瑞芬太尼靶效应室浓度4 ng/ml,Ⅱ组瑞芬太尼靶浓度2.5 ng/ml,2组丙泊酚血浆靶浓度从2.0μg/ml逐渐升高至意识消失,气管插管后根据脑电双频指数（BIS）和血流动力学参数变化调整丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼的靶浓度。记录患者诱导和维持阶段丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼靶浓度、收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）、心率（HR）及苏醒时间。结果Ⅱ组患者意识消失时丙泊酚靶血药浓度明显低于Ⅰ组[（2.5±0.4）μg/ml vs（3.2±0.5）μg/ml,t=5.988,P=0.000],维持过程中Ⅱ组平均丙泊酚靶浓度低于Ⅰ组[（2.1±0.5）μg/ml vs（2.7±0.7）μg/ml,t=3.820,P=0.000],维持过程中Ⅱ组瑞芬太尼靶浓度明显低于Ⅰ组[（0.19±0.06）ng/ml vs（0.32±0.06）ng/ml,t=8.391,P=0.000]。2组诱导后SBP明显下降,气管插管后回升,术中维持稳定。2组DBP、HR的波动无统计学意义。2组血管活性药的应用例数差异无显著性。Ⅱ组麻醉恢复时间长于Ⅰ组（P〈0.05）。结论根据监测数据个体化地调整丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼的靶浓度,能够使行妇科腹腔镜手术老年患者的血流动力学波动范围和麻醉深度维持在与中青年近似的水平,但老年患者苏醒时间仍延长。     

应用响应曲面研究丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼在腹腔镜胆囊切除术麻醉中最佳配伍剂量

目的应用响应曲面分析法,观察丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼在镇静作用上的药效学相互作用规律,探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)靶控输注丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼的最佳配伍剂量。方法选择2014~2016年北京大学第三医院择期LC 100例,5例因手术方式改变、1例因术中出现过敏性休克退出研究,94例完成临床观察和随访。选择丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼靶控输注起始配伍浓度,观察靶控输注至警醒/镇静(Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation,OAA/S)评分≤1分的意识消失时间(time to loss of consciousenss,T LOC),术中根据脑电双频谱指数(bispectral index,BIS)、有创动脉血压和心率(heart rate,HR)调整丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼的靶控输注浓度,维持BIS 40~60、平均动脉压≥60 mm Hg、HR≥50次/min且平均动脉压和HR波动不超过基础值30%。记录停止输注瑞芬太尼与丙泊酚至OAA/S评分≥3分的意识恢复时间(time to recovery of consciousness,T ROC)。以受试者T LOC≤5 min、T ROC≤10 min、术中95%患者药效指标满意为目标,计算丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼在LC术中靶控浓度的最佳配伍范围。结果丙泊酚(2~9μg/ml)与瑞芬太尼(1~10 ng/ml)在T LOC和T ROC的药效上呈协同作用。LC药物靶控浓度的最佳配伍范围:丙泊酚2μg/ml(推荐监测BIS)伍用瑞芬太尼6~10 ng/ml,丙泊酚3μg/ml伍用瑞芬太尼3~5 ng/ml,丙泊酚4μg/ml伍用瑞芬太尼3 ng/ml,丙泊酚4.5μg/ml伍用瑞芬太尼2.6 ng/ml。丙泊酚浓度≥5μg/ml复合小剂量瑞芬太尼,45例中43例BIS<40;靶控输注丙泊酚2μg/ml复合瑞芬太尼6~10 ng/ml,给予气管插管刺激时,25例中2例BIS值呈一过性上升,术中BIS均维持在40~60。3例(3.2%)意识消失前出现呼吸暂停;7例(7.4%)麻醉诱导期间出现循环抑制,其中4例使用血管活性药物;21例(22.3%)主诉注射痛;7例(7.4%)出现多语和不自主活动。术后随访无知晓发生。结论丙泊酚(2~9μg/ml)与瑞芬太尼(1~10 ng/ml)在镇静药效反应呈协同作用;不同的药效反应相结合创建出的丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼最佳配伍剂量范围,可以为LC提供满意的麻醉,并且麻醉诱导和麻醉恢复快速。     

异丙酚、地氟醚或七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉对脑功能区手术患者术中唤醒试验的影响

目的 探讨异丙酚、地氟醚或七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉对脑功能区手术患者术中唤醒试验的影响.方法 择期拟行脑功能区肿瘤切除术患者60例,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,年龄18～60岁,随机分为3组:异丙酚组(P组)、地氟醚组(D组)及七氟醚组(S组),每组20例.静脉注射依托咪酯0.3mg/kg、芬太尼3 μg/kg、维库溴铵0.1 mg/kg行麻醉诱导,采用1%丁卡因喉头及气管粘膜表面麻醉后行气管插管.P组、D组和S组分别靶控输注异丙酚,血浆靶浓度2.0μg/ml,持续吸入地氟醚、七氟醚1.5 MAC维持麻醉.各组均靶控输注瑞芬太尼,血浆靶浓度2.5 ng/ml,唤醒试验前血浆靶浓度降为0.5 ng/ml,静脉注射曲马多100mg,停用麻醉药,行唤醒试验.记录唤醒时间,观察唤醒试验时躁动及寒颤的发生情况.结果 各组患者唤醒时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),P组寒颤发生率较D组和S组高(P<0.05).结论 采用异丙酚、地氟醚或七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉,脑功能区手术患者术中唤醒时间无差别,地氟醚或七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉时有关并发症发生率低,更适用于术中唤醒试验.     

七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼在小儿唇腭裂手术中的应用

目的:观察七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼用于小儿唇腭裂手术的麻醉诱导、维持及苏醒的临床效果.方法:40例唇腭裂患者,ASA Ⅰ级,年龄6个月至12岁,随机分成两组(n=20):S组全凭吸入七氟醚麻醉,SR组七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼.观察两组患儿术中、术后血流动力学变化.记录诱导时间、自主呼吸恢复时间以及术后拔管时间,并观察有无术后躁动等.结果:SR组术中术后血流动力学变化小于S组(p＜0.05),SR组插管时间短于S组(p＜0.05).结论:七氟醚复合瑞芬太尼用于小儿唇腭裂手术较单纯使用七氟醚血流动力学更加平稳.     

舒芬太尼与瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚对老年腹腔镜胆囊切除患者影响的比较

目的 比较舒芬太尼与瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚对老年腹腔镜胆囊切除患者的临床影响.方法 选择腹腔镜胆囊切除老年患者60例,将以上患者随机均分为舒芬太尼组(舒芬太尼+异丙酚麻醉)和瑞芬太尼组(瑞芬太尼+异丙酚麻醉),比较两组患者麻醉期间血流动力学的变化情况及术后疼痛评分与苏醒时间.结果 术中舒芬太尼组的血流动力学稳定性较瑞芬太尼组平稳(P＜0.05);术后舒芬太尼组疼痛评分优于瑞芬太尼组(P＜0.05),而术后瑞芬太尼组苏醒时间优于舒芬太尼组(P＜0.05).结论 老年腹腔镜胆囊切除患者分别采用舒芬太尼与瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚麻醉,前者血流动力学稳定性较后者平稳,且术后前者镇痛效果优于后者,但后者苏醒时间优于前者,应根据患者的情况选择适合的麻醉方案.     

Clinical comparison of remifentanil-sevoflurane vs. remifentanil-propofol for endoscopic endonasal transphenoidal surgery

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic endonasal transphenoidal surgery has been recently proposed as a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of pituitary adenomas. The main objective of the anaesthesiologist is to induce sufficient haemodynamic control together with rapid recovery at the end of surgery. The aim of this study was to examine recovery profile, surgical operative conditions and haemodynamic differences using remifentanil infusion with either propofol target controlled infusion system or sevoflurane. METHOD: Forty-four adult patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, single-blind, two-group study: Group P received propofol target controlled infusion system and remifentanil; Group S received sevoflurane and remifentanil for maintenance of anaesthesia. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the two groups with regards to the haemodynamic changes, operative conditions as assessed by a four-step bleeding score (0-3), were obtained. Recovery times were considerably shorter after remifentanil-sevoflurane in comparison with remifentanil-propofol target controlled infusion system group (7.4 vs. 12.8 min, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that sevoflurane-remifentanil gives a faster recovery and equivalent intraoperative status compared with propofol target controlled infusion system with remifentanil for the endoscopic endonasal transphenoidal approach.     

胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻与全凭静脉麻醉在开胸手术中的比较

目的 比较胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻与全凭静脉麻醉对开胸手术患者血流动力学、麻醉药维持剂量、术后苏醒、躁动及疼痛的影响.方法 64例择期行剖胸手术患者,ASA Ⅱ级～Ⅲ级,采用完全随机设计的方法分为2组.A组:胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻组,患者预先用10 ml 0.25%布比卡因和0.1 mg芬太尼硬膜外给药.术中硬膜外0.25%布比卡因和芬太尼10μg/ml,5 ml/h复合丙泊酚维持.B组:全凭静脉麻醉组,丙泊酚-端芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉.观察并记录不同时间点2组心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、所需麻醉维持药量、术毕清醒及出现疼痛时间.结果 2组患者各观察点血流动力学变化比较,差异无统计学意义;胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻组麻醉维持不需要静脉镇痛药瑞芬太尼和肌松药阿曲库铵,只需复合充分的丙泊酚镇静,就能满足手术需求;术后苏醒早;拔管时间(11±4)min,相对于全凭静脉麻醉组(23±16)min明显缩短(P<0.05):躁动例数显著减少;术后出现疼痛时间(7.4±2.6)min相对于全凭静脉麻醉组(0.5士0.3)min明显延长(P<0.01).结论 胸段硬膜外复合静脉全麻用于开胸手术快通道麻醉是一种安全、经济、有效并有利于患者术后恢复的麻醉方法.     

Cost-reduction analysis of propofol versus sevoflurane: maintenance of anaesthesia for gynaecological surgery using the bispectral index

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to compare the costs of propofol versus sevoflurane for the maintenance of the hypnotic component of anaesthesia during general anaesthesia, guided by the bispectral index, for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Forty ASA Grade I-II female patients scheduled for gynaecological laparoscopy were randomly allocated to two groups. All patients received a continuous infusion of remifentanil (0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) for 2 min. Then anaesthesia was induced with propofol 1% at 300 mL h(-1) until loss of consciousness. To guide the bispectral index between 40 and 60, Group 1 patients received propofol 10 mg kg(-1) h(-1) initially, which was increased or decreased by 2 mg kg(-1) h(-1) steps; Group 2 patients received sevoflurane, initially set at 2 vol.% and adjusted with steps of 0.2-0.4%. The time and quality of anaesthesia and recovery were assessed in two postoperative standardized interviews. RESULTS: Patient characteristics, the propofol induction dose, the bispectral index and the haemodynamic profiles during induction of anaesthesia, and its duration, were similar between the groups. In Group 1, 7.55 +/- 1.75 mg kg(-1) h(-1) propofol and in Group 2, 0.20 +/- 0.09 mL kg(-1) h(-1) liquid sevoflurane were used for maintenance. The cost for maintenance, including wasted drugs, was higher when using propofol (Euro 25.14 +/- 10.69) than sevoflurane (Euro 12.80 +/- 2.67). Postoperatively, recovery profiles tended to be better with propofol; however, the day after discharge no differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: When applying the bispectral index to guide the administration of hypnotic anaesthetic drugs, propofol-based maintenance of anaesthesia was associated with the highest cost. A trend towards a better recovery profile was obtained with propofol. However, on the day after discharge, no differences in quality were observed.     

TIVA mit Propofol/Remifentanil oder balancierte Anästhesie mit Sevofluran/Fentanyl bei laparoskopischen Operationen

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the differences between TIVA with propofol/remifentanil (P/R) and balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl (S/F) in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Emphasis was put on haemodynamic reaction, recovery profile, postoperative side effects and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol/remifentanil or anaesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl. After premedication (midazolam) and induction of anesthesia (propofol, atracurium) in both groups, either 1 microgram/kg fentanyl (S/F) or 1 microgram/kg remifentanil (P/R) was injected. Anaesthesia was maintained with 0.5 microgram/kg/min remifentanil (reduced to 50% after 5 min) and 0.06 microgram/kg/min propofol (P/R) or 1.7 vol % sevoflurane (S/F). Both groups were mechanically ventilated with 30% oxygen in air. The administration of sevoflurane and the infusion of the anaesthetics were adjusted to maintain a surgical depth of anaesthesia. For postoperative analgesia 1 g paracetamol was administered rectally prior to surgery. After recovery 20 mg/kg metamizol was given intravenously. At the end of surgery the anaesthetics were discontinued and haemodynamics, early emergence from anaesthesia, pain level, frequency of analgesic demand, incidence of PONV, shivering and patient satisfaction were assessed. Parameters were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Recovery time after propofol-remifentanil anaesthesia was significantly shorter than after administration of sevoflurane and fentanyl (spontaneous ventilation 4.1 vs. 6.3 min, extubation 4.3 vs. 9.3 min, eye opening 4.4 vs 8.2 min, stating name 5.3 vs. 13.2 min, stating date of birth 5.4 vs. 13.3 min). There were no significant differences between the groups in shivering, pain score, analgesic demand and PONV. The S/F group responded to tracheal intubation with significantly higher blood pressure than the P/R group. During maintenance of anaesthesia heart rate in patients with S/F was significantly higher (P/R:HR max +16/-10; S/F:HR max +24/-0.). Measured on a scale (S/F 62%). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients given balanced anaesthesia with sevoflurane and fentanyl, TIVA with propofol and remifentanil proved to be particularly suited for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Its major advantages are haemodynamic stability, significantly shorter times of emergence, and the exceptional acceptance by the patients.     

Comparison of the antitussive effect of remifentanil during recovery from propofol and sevoflurane anaesthesia

This prospective randomised study compared the antitussive effect of remifentanil during recovery from either propofol or sevoflurane anaesthesia. Seventy‐four female patients undergoing thyroidectomy were anaesthetised with either propofol and remifentanil or sevoflurane and remifentanil. During recovery, remifentanil was maintained at an effect‐site concentration of 2 ng.ml^?1 until extubation and the occurrence of coughing, haemodynamic parameters and recovery profiles were compared between the two groups. During recovery, neither the incidence nor the severity of cough (incidence 20% with propofol; 24% with sevoflurane, p = 0.77), nor the haemodynamic parameters were different between the two groups. Time to awakening and time to extubation were significantly shorter in the propofol group (4.7 min, 6.1 min min, respectively) compared with the sevoflurane group (7.9 min and 8.9 min respectively) (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). An effect‐site concentration of 2 ng.ml^?1 of remifentanil was associated with smooth emergence from both propofol and sevoflurane anaesthesia.     

丙泊酚与七氟醚麻醉在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中应用效果的对照研究

目的:对比分析丙泊酚与七氟醚麻醉在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的应用效果。方法:回顾分析2009年2月至2012年3月为62例患者行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床资料,随机分为实验组与对照组。对照组采用瑞芬太尼与丙泊酚联合麻醉,观察组采用瑞芬太尼与七氟醚联合麻醉,对比分析两组患者应用效果。结果:实验组患者于气管插管后1 min、建立人工气腹前及建立人工气腹后5 min舒张压、收缩压及心率明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者在自主呼吸恢复、睁眼、拔管及定向力恢复用时等方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:丙泊酚与七氟醚在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的麻醉效果均较显著,但七氟醚麻醉可降低CO2气腹对患者产生的影响,能更平稳地维持患者的生命体征。     

Propofol/remifentanil vs sevoflurane/remifentanil for long lasting surgical procedures: a randomised controlled trial

We compared the haemodynamics, emergence and recovery characteristics of total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol/remifentanil with sevoflurane/remifentanil anaesthesia, under bispectral index guidance, in 103 patients undergoing surgical procedures lasting > 3.5 h. Time to tracheal extubation was significantly shorter in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane group (mean (SD) 8.3 (3.5) min vs 10.8 (4.6) min, respectively; p = 0.0024), but further recovery was comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, intensity of pain or postoperative nausea and vomiting. During and after anaesthesia of comparable depth for long lasting surgical procedures, both propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil enable haemodynamic stability and fast emergence. The shorter time to extubation in the propofol group does not offer a relevant clinical advantage.     

Induction with sevoflurane-remifentanil is comparable to propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium in PONV after laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE: To compare sevoflurane-remifentanil induction and propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium induction with regards to the frequency of moderate to severe postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the first 24 hr after laparoscopic day surgery. METHODS: After informed consent, 156 ASA physical status class I to III patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or tubal ligation were randomized to either induction with sevoflurane 8%, N(2)O 67% and iv remifentanil 1 to 1.5 microg.kg(-1) or induction with iv fentanyl 2 to 3 microg.kg(-1), propofol 2 mg.kg(-1), and rocuronium 0.3 to 0.5 mg.kg(-1). All patients received iv ketorolac 0.5 mg.kg(-1) at induction and sevoflurane-N(2)O maintenance anesthesia with rocuronium as needed. PONV was treated with iv ondansetron, droperidol, or dimenhydrinate; postoperative pain was treated with opioid analgesics. Patients were followed for 24 hr with regards to PONV and pain. Intubating conditions, induction and emergence times, time to achieve fast-track discharge criteria, and drug costs were measured. RESULTS: No differences were seen between the two groups in their frequencies of 24-hr moderate to severe PONV and postoperative pain, or in their intubating conditions, induction and emergence times, and time to achieve fast-track discharge criteria. Patients undergoing sevoflurane-remifentanil induction received more morphine (11 mg vs 8 mg; P < 0.001) in the postanesthetic care unit. Sevoflurane-remifentanil induction resulted in similar anesthetic and total drug costs for both procedures. CONCLUSION: We did not demonstrate any difference in PONV, pain, or anesthetic/recovery times or costs between the sevoflurane and propofol groups. Sevoflurane-remifentanil induction is a feasible technique for anesthetic induction.     

Target-controlled infusion anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil compared with manually controlled infusion anesthesia in mastoidectomy surgeries

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) system is increasingly used in anesthesia to control the concentration of selected drugs in the plasma or at the site of drug effect (effect-site). The performance of propofol TCI delivery when combined with remifentanil in patients undergoing elective surgeries has been investigated. Our aim in this study was to assess the anesthesia profile of the propofol and remifentanil target controlled infusion (TCI) anesthesia as compared to the manually controlled infusion (MCI), in mastoidectomy surgery, where a bloodless field is of utmost importance to the surgeon. Sixty patients, aged 18-60 years ASA I-II enrolled in the study, were divided into two equal groups. Group MCI received propofol and remifentanil by conventional-dose-weight infusion method, and Group TCI received propofol 4 microg/ml and remifentanil 4 ng/ml as effect-site target concentration. The hemodynamic variability, recovery profile, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), surgeons satisfaction were assessed. Results were analyzed by SPSS version 11.5. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, ASA class, sex, weight, basal vital signs, operation time. The blood pressure and pulse were above desired levels in some data points in the MCI Group (P < or = 0.05). The PACU stay time to reach Aldret score of 10 was longer in the MCI Group (42.54 +/- 8 vs 59.01 +/- 6 min) (P < or = 0.05). The PONV was more common in the MCI Group (P < or = 0.05). Surgeon's satisfaction of the surgical field showed no significant differences except when described as "good", more common in the TCI Group. TCI is capable to induce and maintain anesthesia as well as MCI. In some stages of anesthesia, the TCI control of vital signs are better than the MCI. In some stages of anesthesia, the TCI control of vital signs are beter than the MCI. Recovery profile and complication rate and surgeon's satisfactions are more acceptable in the TCI than in the MCI Group.