Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery

Study Objective: To determine if a total intravenous (IV) technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. Design:Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Inpatient Otolaryngology service at a university medical center. Patients: 102...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical anesthesia 1995-06, Vol.7 (4), p.292-296
Hauptverfasser: Jellish, W.Scott, Leonetti, John P., Murdoch, John R., Fowles, Susan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 296
container_issue 4
container_start_page 292
container_title Journal of clinical anesthesia
container_volume 7
creator Jellish, W.Scott
Leonetti, John P.
Murdoch, John R.
Fowles, Susan
description Study Objective: To determine if a total intravenous (IV) technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. Design:Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Inpatient Otolaryngology service at a university medical center. Patients: 102 ASA status I and II nonobese patients with no significant history of diabetes, chronic cholecystitis, neuropathy, or neuromuscular disorders that could produce delayed gastric emptying. Interventions: Patients were admitted to the study and randomly divided into three equal groups. IV administration of thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by 60% air/oxygen (O 2) with isoflurane 1% to 2% end-tidal for maintenance anesthesia (group 1). The same anesthetic was given as above, with the addition of droperidol 25 mcg/kg given after induction (group 2). IV administration of propofol 2 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by propofol 50 to 250 mcg/kg/min for maintenance anesthesia. All groups received fentanyl 3 mcg/kg IV after induction. Measurements and Main Results: Surgical duration, induction, maintenance, and total anesthesia times were recorded in addition to eye opening and extubation. Intergroup comparisons of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were done, as were recovery scores using the Steward system. Patients receiving propofol had significantly less nausea than those receiving isoflurane only (4 of 34 versus 12 of 34, p < 0.05) as well as vomiting (2 of 34 versus 8 of 34, p < 0.05). Immediate recovery scores were significantly better for propofol compared with the isoflurane/droperidol group. Recovery at 30 minutes was also faster with propofol compared with isoflurane or isoflurane/ droperidol (5.1 ± 0.1 min versus 5.1 ± 0.2 min and 5.2 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Propofol-fentanyl seems to be a better anesthetic than isoflurane-fentanyl in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery. Though the addition of droperidol to the isoflurane anesthetic seemed as effective, emergence from anesthesia was slower. For middle ear surgeries producing emesis, propofol-based anesthetics produced a rapid emergence with less nausea and vomiting.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0952-8180(95)00030-L
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77593444</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>095281809500030L</els_id><sourcerecordid>77593444</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-5ce480017051c3c4f8fc0302673c94e363c40a58aff3426d082b12ec325e3b173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo67r6DxRyEj1Ukybpx0WQxS8o6EHPMU2nbqRtatIq--9N3WWPngLzPjOZeRA6peSKEppck1zEUUYzcpGLS0III1Gxh-Y0S1nERZzvo_kOOURH3n8GKAR0hmap4EkqxBy9vzjb29o2Uak8VFh14IcVeKOw8ljbtlculH_MsMJ-UF2l3A4ajMYD6FVnvkbwuLYOt6aqGsCgHPaj-wC3PkYHtWo8nGzfBXq7v3tdPkbF88PT8raINMuSIRIaeEYITYmgmmleZ7UOF8VJynTOgSWhRpTIVF0zHicVyeKSxqBZLICVNGULdL6Z2zs7rTPI1ngNTROWtaOXaSpyxjkPIN-A2lnvHdSyd6ZVbi0pkZNYOVmTkzWZC_knVhah7Ww7fyxbqHZNW5Mhv9nkEI78NuCk1wY6DZVxoAdZWfP_B79fWogg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77593444</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Jellish, W.Scott ; Leonetti, John P. ; Murdoch, John R. ; Fowles, Susan</creator><creatorcontrib>Jellish, W.Scott ; Leonetti, John P. ; Murdoch, John R. ; Fowles, Susan</creatorcontrib><description>Study Objective: To determine if a total intravenous (IV) technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. Design:Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Inpatient Otolaryngology service at a university medical center. Patients: 102 ASA status I and II nonobese patients with no significant history of diabetes, chronic cholecystitis, neuropathy, or neuromuscular disorders that could produce delayed gastric emptying. Interventions: Patients were admitted to the study and randomly divided into three equal groups. IV administration of thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by 60% air/oxygen (O 2) with isoflurane 1% to 2% end-tidal for maintenance anesthesia (group 1). The same anesthetic was given as above, with the addition of droperidol 25 mcg/kg given after induction (group 2). IV administration of propofol 2 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by propofol 50 to 250 mcg/kg/min for maintenance anesthesia. All groups received fentanyl 3 mcg/kg IV after induction. Measurements and Main Results: Surgical duration, induction, maintenance, and total anesthesia times were recorded in addition to eye opening and extubation. Intergroup comparisons of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were done, as were recovery scores using the Steward system. Patients receiving propofol had significantly less nausea than those receiving isoflurane only (4 of 34 versus 12 of 34, p &lt; 0.05) as well as vomiting (2 of 34 versus 8 of 34, p &lt; 0.05). Immediate recovery scores were significantly better for propofol compared with the isoflurane/droperidol group. Recovery at 30 minutes was also faster with propofol compared with isoflurane or isoflurane/ droperidol (5.1 ± 0.1 min versus 5.1 ± 0.2 min and 5.2 ± 0.2 mm, p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Propofol-fentanyl seems to be a better anesthetic than isoflurane-fentanyl in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery. Though the addition of droperidol to the isoflurane anesthetic seemed as effective, emergence from anesthesia was slower. For middle ear surgeries producing emesis, propofol-based anesthetics produced a rapid emergence with less nausea and vomiting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0952-8180</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4529</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0952-8180(95)00030-L</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7546755</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adjuvants, Anesthesia ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Anesthesia, Intravenous ; Anesthesia, middle ear surgery ; Anesthetics, Inhalation ; Anesthetics, Intravenous ; Droperidol ; Ear, Middle - surgery ; Female ; Fentanyl ; Humans ; Isoflurane ; isoflurane, propofol ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nausea - chemically induced ; Pain, Postoperative - prevention &amp; control ; Postoperative Complications ; Propofol ; Prospective Studies ; Vomiting - chemically induced</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical anesthesia, 1995-06, Vol.7 (4), p.292-296</ispartof><rights>1995</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-5ce480017051c3c4f8fc0302673c94e363c40a58aff3426d082b12ec325e3b173</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-5ce480017051c3c4f8fc0302673c94e363c40a58aff3426d082b12ec325e3b173</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/095281809500030L$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7546755$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jellish, W.Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leonetti, John P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murdoch, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fowles, Susan</creatorcontrib><title>Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery</title><title>Journal of clinical anesthesia</title><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><description>Study Objective: To determine if a total intravenous (IV) technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. Design:Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Inpatient Otolaryngology service at a university medical center. Patients: 102 ASA status I and II nonobese patients with no significant history of diabetes, chronic cholecystitis, neuropathy, or neuromuscular disorders that could produce delayed gastric emptying. Interventions: Patients were admitted to the study and randomly divided into three equal groups. IV administration of thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by 60% air/oxygen (O 2) with isoflurane 1% to 2% end-tidal for maintenance anesthesia (group 1). The same anesthetic was given as above, with the addition of droperidol 25 mcg/kg given after induction (group 2). IV administration of propofol 2 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by propofol 50 to 250 mcg/kg/min for maintenance anesthesia. All groups received fentanyl 3 mcg/kg IV after induction. Measurements and Main Results: Surgical duration, induction, maintenance, and total anesthesia times were recorded in addition to eye opening and extubation. Intergroup comparisons of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were done, as were recovery scores using the Steward system. Patients receiving propofol had significantly less nausea than those receiving isoflurane only (4 of 34 versus 12 of 34, p &lt; 0.05) as well as vomiting (2 of 34 versus 8 of 34, p &lt; 0.05). Immediate recovery scores were significantly better for propofol compared with the isoflurane/droperidol group. Recovery at 30 minutes was also faster with propofol compared with isoflurane or isoflurane/ droperidol (5.1 ± 0.1 min versus 5.1 ± 0.2 min and 5.2 ± 0.2 mm, p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Propofol-fentanyl seems to be a better anesthetic than isoflurane-fentanyl in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery. Though the addition of droperidol to the isoflurane anesthetic seemed as effective, emergence from anesthesia was slower. For middle ear surgeries producing emesis, propofol-based anesthetics produced a rapid emergence with less nausea and vomiting.</description><subject>Adjuvants, Anesthesia</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Intravenous</subject><subject>Anesthesia, middle ear surgery</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Inhalation</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Intravenous</subject><subject>Droperidol</subject><subject>Ear, Middle - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fentanyl</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Isoflurane</subject><subject>isoflurane, propofol</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nausea - chemically induced</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Propofol</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Vomiting - chemically induced</subject><issn>0952-8180</issn><issn>1873-4529</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo67r6DxRyEj1Ukybpx0WQxS8o6EHPMU2nbqRtatIq--9N3WWPngLzPjOZeRA6peSKEppck1zEUUYzcpGLS0III1Gxh-Y0S1nERZzvo_kOOURH3n8GKAR0hmap4EkqxBy9vzjb29o2Uak8VFh14IcVeKOw8ljbtlculH_MsMJ-UF2l3A4ajMYD6FVnvkbwuLYOt6aqGsCgHPaj-wC3PkYHtWo8nGzfBXq7v3tdPkbF88PT8raINMuSIRIaeEYITYmgmmleZ7UOF8VJynTOgSWhRpTIVF0zHicVyeKSxqBZLICVNGULdL6Z2zs7rTPI1ngNTROWtaOXaSpyxjkPIN-A2lnvHdSyd6ZVbi0pkZNYOVmTkzWZC_knVhah7Ww7fyxbqHZNW5Mhv9nkEI78NuCk1wY6DZVxoAdZWfP_B79fWogg</recordid><startdate>19950601</startdate><enddate>19950601</enddate><creator>Jellish, W.Scott</creator><creator>Leonetti, John P.</creator><creator>Murdoch, John R.</creator><creator>Fowles, Susan</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19950601</creationdate><title>Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery</title><author>Jellish, W.Scott ; Leonetti, John P. ; Murdoch, John R. ; Fowles, Susan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-5ce480017051c3c4f8fc0302673c94e363c40a58aff3426d082b12ec325e3b173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Adjuvants, Anesthesia</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Intravenous</topic><topic>Anesthesia, middle ear surgery</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Inhalation</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Intravenous</topic><topic>Droperidol</topic><topic>Ear, Middle - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fentanyl</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Isoflurane</topic><topic>isoflurane, propofol</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nausea - chemically induced</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Propofol</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Vomiting - chemically induced</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jellish, W.Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leonetti, John P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murdoch, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fowles, Susan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jellish, W.Scott</au><au>Leonetti, John P.</au><au>Murdoch, John R.</au><au>Fowles, Susan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><date>1995-06-01</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>292</spage><epage>296</epage><pages>292-296</pages><issn>0952-8180</issn><eissn>1873-4529</eissn><abstract>Study Objective: To determine if a total intravenous (IV) technique with propofol and fentanyl is superior to isoflurane anesthesia in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. Design:Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Inpatient Otolaryngology service at a university medical center. Patients: 102 ASA status I and II nonobese patients with no significant history of diabetes, chronic cholecystitis, neuropathy, or neuromuscular disorders that could produce delayed gastric emptying. Interventions: Patients were admitted to the study and randomly divided into three equal groups. IV administration of thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by 60% air/oxygen (O 2) with isoflurane 1% to 2% end-tidal for maintenance anesthesia (group 1). The same anesthetic was given as above, with the addition of droperidol 25 mcg/kg given after induction (group 2). IV administration of propofol 2 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia followed by propofol 50 to 250 mcg/kg/min for maintenance anesthesia. All groups received fentanyl 3 mcg/kg IV after induction. Measurements and Main Results: Surgical duration, induction, maintenance, and total anesthesia times were recorded in addition to eye opening and extubation. Intergroup comparisons of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain were done, as were recovery scores using the Steward system. Patients receiving propofol had significantly less nausea than those receiving isoflurane only (4 of 34 versus 12 of 34, p &lt; 0.05) as well as vomiting (2 of 34 versus 8 of 34, p &lt; 0.05). Immediate recovery scores were significantly better for propofol compared with the isoflurane/droperidol group. Recovery at 30 minutes was also faster with propofol compared with isoflurane or isoflurane/ droperidol (5.1 ± 0.1 min versus 5.1 ± 0.2 min and 5.2 ± 0.2 mm, p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Propofol-fentanyl seems to be a better anesthetic than isoflurane-fentanyl in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery. Though the addition of droperidol to the isoflurane anesthetic seemed as effective, emergence from anesthesia was slower. For middle ear surgeries producing emesis, propofol-based anesthetics produced a rapid emergence with less nausea and vomiting.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>7546755</pmid><doi>10.1016/0952-8180(95)00030-L</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0952-8180
ispartof Journal of clinical anesthesia, 1995-06, Vol.7 (4), p.292-296
issn 0952-8180
1873-4529
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77593444
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adjuvants, Anesthesia
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Anesthesia, Intravenous
Anesthesia, middle ear surgery
Anesthetics, Inhalation
Anesthetics, Intravenous
Droperidol
Ear, Middle - surgery
Female
Fentanyl
Humans
Isoflurane
isoflurane, propofol
Male
Middle Aged
Nausea - chemically induced
Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control
Postoperative Complications
Propofol
Prospective Studies
Vomiting - chemically induced
title Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T13%3A49%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Propofol-based%20anesthesia%20as%20compared%20with%20standard%20anesthetic%20techniques%20for%20middle%20ear%20surgery&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20anesthesia&rft.au=Jellish,%20W.Scott&rft.date=1995-06-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=292&rft.epage=296&rft.pages=292-296&rft.issn=0952-8180&rft.eissn=1873-4529&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0952-8180(95)00030-L&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77593444%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77593444&rft_id=info:pmid/7546755&rft_els_id=095281809500030L&rfr_iscdi=true