Comparative study of sevoflurane versus propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults
Keywords:
laryngeal mask airway, propofol, sevofluraneAbstract
Background: Propofol is a preferred induction agent for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion due to its propensity of suppressing oropharyngeal and cough reflexes. Sevoflurane is a nonpungent inhalation anesthetic agent which can be used as an induction agent. The aim of the present study was to compare Sevoflurane versus Propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults. Material and methods: The present study was carried out in 300 patients to compare Sevoflurane versus Propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults. In Group-A: induction with propofol and in Group-B: induction was done with inhalational sevoflurane 8. Various vital parameters and other clinical parameters were recorded and compared in both the groups. The statistical analysis was done. Results:Propofol needed leser time to loss of eyelash reflex, Time to jaw relaxation, Time to completion of successful insertion of Laryngeal Mask Airway. The percentage of patients who had successful LMA insertion at first attempt was larger with propofol. The duration of apnea was longer in group propofol. Excitatory movement was more in group propofol. Cough, laryngospasm was absent in propofol. Hiccups was absent in both groups. During insertion of LMA, coughing, gagging was absent in group sevoflurane and laryngospasm was absent in propofol.
Downloads
References
Bogetz MS. Using the laryngeal mask airway to manage the difficult airway. Anaesthesiology Clin North America 2002;20(4):863-70.
Krohner RG, Ramanathan S. Anatomy of airway in Benumof’s airway management. 2nd edn. 2006: p. 1-19, 476-97, 1027-9.
Brain AIJ. The laryngeal mask: a new concept in airway management. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1983;55(8):801-5.
Sayyid SSM, Aovad MT, Taha SK.. A comparison of sevoflurane propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults. Anesth. Analg. 2005;100:1204 -09.
Khan TH. Comparison of propofol with thiopentone sodium as induction agent in day – case short gynaecological procedures. Anaesthesia, Pain & Inten Care. 2000;1:9-16.
Strum DP, Eger EI II. Partition coefficients for sevoflurane in human blood, saline, and olive oil. Anesth Analg 1987;66:654 – 6.
Ganatra SB, D’Mello J, Butani M, Jhamnani P. Conditions for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway: comparisons between sevoflurane and propofol using fentanyl as a co-induction agent. Eur J Anaesth 2002;19:371–5.
Yurino M, Kimura H. Induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane, nitrous oxide, and oxygen: a comparison of spontaneous ventilation and vital capacity rapid inhalation induction (VCRI) techniques. Anesth Analg 1993;76:598 – 601.
Thwaites A, Edmends S, Smith I. Inhalation induction with sevoflurane: a double-blind comparison with propofol. Br J Anaesth 1997;78:356 – 61.
Ti LK, Chow MYH, Lee TL. Comparison of sevoflurane with propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults. Anesth Analg 1999;88:908 –12.
Helfman Steven M, Martin I Gold et al. Which drug prevent tachycardia and hypertension associated with tracheal intubation: Lidocaine, fentanyl or esmolol. Anaesthesia Analgesia 1971, 72, 482-6.
Ferson DZ, Brimcombe JR, Brain AIJ. The laryngeal mask airway. International Anesthesiology Clinics 1998;36(2).
Baker CE, Smith I. Sevoflurane: a comparison between vital capacity and tidal breathing techniques for induction of anesthesia and laryngeal mask airway placement. Anesthesia 1999;54(9):841-4.
Ti LK, Chow MY, Lee TL. Comparison of sevoflurane with propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 1999 Apr 1;88(4):908-12.
Siddik-Sayyid SM, Aouad MT, Taha SK, Daaboul DG, Deeb PG, Massouh FM, Muallem MR, Baraka AS. A comparison of sevoflurane-propofol versus sevoflurane or propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults. Anesthesia &Analgesia. 2005 Apr 1;100(4):1204-9.
Patel B, Patel H, Kantharia B. A comparative study of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion. Int J Med Sci Public Health 2017;6: 295-298
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 International journal of health sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant IJHS right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.
Articles published in IJHS can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
This copyright notice applies to articles published in IJHS volumes 4 onwards. Please read about the copyright notices for previous volumes under Journal History.
