CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Salib, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Moore, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Salib, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Moore, A.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 39, 1045-1050, Copyright © 1992 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society


ARTICLES

Measuring recovery from general anaesthesia using critical flicker frequency: a comparison of two methods

Y Salib, G Plourde, K Alloul, A Provost and A Moore
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Canada.

Critical flicker frequency (CFF) is the frequency at which a flickering light appears steady. It is a sensitive measure for assessing recovery from anaesthesia. The CFF is almost always determined with the method of limits by which the flickering frequency is progressively decreased (or increased) until the patient reports a change from fusion to flicker (or flicker to fusion). This method has two disadvantages: it is influenced by the response bias (i.e., the subjective criterion used by the subject to decide that flicker is present or absent) and by the response delay (i.e., the interval between the perceptual change and the response). To avoid these problems, the method of forced choice is recommended. For each trial, the subject observes the light during two short successive periods. The light flickers during only one period, according to chance. The patient must indicate the period during which flickers occur. If uncertain, the patient has to make a guess. The aim of this study was to compare the two methods for assessing recovery from general anaesthesia. Two induction agents were used to obtain different recovery profiles. Twenty patients undergoing uncomplicated surgery lasting less than two hours were tested. They received either thiopentone or midazolam for induction, according to a randomized design. Vecuronium was used to facilitate tracheal intubation and anaesthesia was maintained with fentanyl, isoflurane and nitrous oxide. The CFF was measured before induction and at 60, 120 and 180 minutes after arrival in the recovery room. The person measuring CFF was unaware of the induction agent used.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.