alexa Remifentanil-based anesthesia versus a propofol technique for otologic surgical procedures.


Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Author(s): Jellish WS, Leonetti JP, Avramov A, Fluder E, Murdoch J

Abstract Share this page

Abstract Otologic procedures require a still surgical field and are associated with a 50\% incidence of emetic symptoms. Propofol reduces nausea and vomiting but not intraoperative movement. This study compares a remifentanil/propofol anesthetic to a propofol/fentanyl combination to determine which provides the best perioperative conditions for otologic microsurgery. Eighty healthy patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the anesthetic combinations. Demographic data, hemodynamic variables, movement, and bispectral index monitoring values in addition to anesthetic emergence, nausea, vomiting, pain, and other recovery variables were compared between groups with appropriate statistical methods. Both groups were similar. Times to eye opening (7.7 +/- 0.7 vs 12.4 +/- 1.2 minutes) and extubation (9.8 +/- 0.9 vs 12.4 +/- 1.0 minutes) were shorter with remifentanil. This group also had lower hemodynamic variables and movement (23\% vs 65\%) under anesthesia. Postoperative pain was mild in both groups, but remifentanil patients had more than the propofol group. All other postoperative parameters were similar. Remifentanil-based anesthesia produces better hemodynamic stability, less movement, and faster emergence after otologic surgery, with propofol's antiemetic effect, for the same cost.
This article was published in Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg and referenced in Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version