摘要:

Background and objective:We assessed the intraoperative haemodynamic responses and recovery profiles of total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and alfentanil for outpatient surgery.Methods:Patients in Group 1 (n= 20) received alfentanil 20 μg kg−1followed by 2 μg kg−1min−1intravenously; patients in Group 2 (n= 20) received remifentanil 1 μg kg−1followed by 0.5 μg kg−1min−1intravenously. Both groups then received propofol 2 mg kg−1followed by 9 mg kg−1h−1intravenously. Five minutes after skin incision, infusion rates were decreased, and at the end of surgery, all infusions were discontinued. Early recovery was assessed by the Aldrete score, whereas intermediate recovery was assessed with the postanaesthetic discharge scoring system (PADS).Results:Perioperative arterial pressure was similar in both groups; heart rate was lower in Group 2 (P< 0.05). The times to spontaneous and adequate respiration, response to verbal commands, extubation and times for Aldrete score ⩾9 were shorter in Group 2 patients (P< 0.05). Pain scores were higher in Group 2 patients (P< 0.05). Overall times for postanaesthetic discharge scores ⩾9 were similar.Conclusions:Early recovery of patients after day surgery is significantly shorter after total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil compared with that with alfentanil but postoperative pain management must be planned ahead.

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

摘要:

Background and objective:The LMA-ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway is a new laryngeal mask airway with a modified cuff and drainage tube. We compared oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure and anatomical position (assessed fibreoptically) for the Size 5 LMA-ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway in different head-neck positions and using different intracuff inflation volumes.Methods:Thirty paralysed anaesthetized adult male patients were studied. The LMA-ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway were inserted into each patient in random order. The oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, and anatomical position of the airway tube and drainage tube (LMA-ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway only) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, extension and rotation in random order), and at 0-40 mL cuff volumes in the neutral position in 10 mL increments.Results:Compared with the neutral position, the oropharyngeal leak pressure for both the LMA-ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway was higher in flexion and rotation (allP⩽ 0.02), but lower in extension (allP⩽ 0.01). Changes in head-neck position did not alter the anatomical position of the airway tube or the drainage tube. The oropharyngeal leak pressure was always higher for the LMA-ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway (allP⩽ 0.005) and anatomical position better for the classic laryngeal mask airway (allP⩽ 0.04).Conclusions:The anatomical position of the LMA-ProSeal® and the classic laryngeal mask airway is stable in different head-neck positions, but head-neck flexion and rotation are associated with an increase, and head-neck extension a decrease, in oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure. The Size 5 LMA-ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway is capable of forming a more effective seal than the Size 5 classic laryngeal mask airway in males.

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID

ISSN:0265-0215    

出版商:OVID    

年代:2003

数据来源: OVID