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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Molloy, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Scanlon, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Molloy, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Scanlon, P.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 46, 322-326, Copyright © 1999 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Propofol or sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion

ME Molloy, DJ Buggy and P Scanlon
Department of Anaesthesia, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

PURPOSE: Sevoflurane is a volatile anesthetic agent, which combines rapid, smooth inhalational induction of anesthesia with rapid recovery, making it particularly suitable for day case anesthesia. The laryngeal mask airway is often also used in ambulatory anesthesia, with intravenous propofol being the agent of choice for its insertion. Our objective was to compare the conditions for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion obtained by modified vital capacity breath sevoflurane inhalational induction of anesthesia with propofol intravenous induction. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients, aged 18-65 yr, ASA I-II, undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery were randomized into two groups in a prospective, single-blind study. Patients in Group P (n=44) received 2.5 mg x kg(-1) propofol i.v. and in Group S (n=44) received sevoflurane 8% in nitrous oxide 50% and oxygen. Ventilation was not assisted. Laryngeal mask airway insertion was attempted at one minute intervals from loss of both verbal response and eyelash reflex, by an anesthesiologist unaware of the induction technique. Complications, such as coughing and head movement, were also noted at each attempt. RESULTS: Mean time to successful LMA insertion was 1.3 (1-3) min in P and 2.2 (1-3) min in S, P < 0.05. Eleven patients in Group P, (25%) required additional propofol compared with four (9%) in S, P < 0.05. Incidence of complications was similar in both groups and by 3 min, LMA was successfully inserted in all patients. CONCLUSION: Modified vital capacity breath inhalational induction with sevoflurane 8% is efficient for LMA insertion in most cases, but takes slightly longer than propofol.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. C. Lewis, R. I. Gerenstein, and G. Chidiac
Onset time for sevoflurane/nitrous oxide induction in adults is prolonged with increasing age.
Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2006; 102(6): 1699 - 1702.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. M Siddik-Sayyid, M. T. Aouad, S. K. Taha, D. G. Daaboul, P. G. Deeb, F. M. Massouh, M.-R. A. Muallem, and A. S. Baraka
A Comparison of Sevoflurane-Propofol Versus Sevoflurane or Propofol for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion in Adults
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2005; 100(4): 1204 - 1209.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
D. A. Kirkbride, J. L. Parker, G. D. Williams, and D. J. Buggy
Induction of Anesthesia in the Elderly Ambulatory Patient: A Double-Blinded Comparison of Propofol and Sevoflurane
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2001; 93(5): 1185 - 1187.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
H. S. Joo and W. J. Perks
Sevoflurane Versus Propofol for Anesthetic Induction: A Meta-Analysis
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2000; 91(1): 213 - 219.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.