Display options
Cite
Chavan SG, Mandhyan S, Gujar SH, et al. Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017;33(1):97-101doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_313_15.
Chavan, S. G., Mandhyan, S., Gujar, S. H., & Shinde, G. P. (2017). Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology, 33(1), 97-101. https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_313_15
Chavan, Shirishkumar Gulabrao, et al. "Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures." Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology vol. 33,1 (2017): 97-101. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_313_15
Chavan SG, Mandhyan S, Gujar SH, Shinde GP. Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jan-Mar;33(1):97-101. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_313_15. PMID: 28413280; PMCID: PMC5374839.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jan-Mar;33(1):97-101. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_313_15.

Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures.

Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology

Shirishkumar Gulabrao Chavan, Surita Mandhyan, Sandhya Haridas Gujar, Gourish Prakash Shinde

Affiliations

  1. Department of Anaesthesiology, ESIC Medical College and PGIMSR, KK Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
  2. Department of Anaesthesiology, LTMMC, Sion, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
  3. Department of Anaesthesiology, ESIC-PGIMSR, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
  4. Department of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia, Seth GSMC and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

PMID: 28413280 PMCID: PMC5374839 DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_313_15

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A popular method of providing anesthesia for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion is with the use of propofol. However, bolus propofol has been associated with adverse effects such as hypotension, apnea and pain on injection. Hence, time is needed to search an alternative. We aimed to compare the induction characteristics, ease of LMA insertion, hemodynamic changes and complications with inhalation of 8% sevoflurane vital capacity breath and propofol.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study of 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists' Grade I and II patients was conducted and distributed among two groups with 30 each undergoing gynecological procedures under general anesthesia. Group

RESULTS: Sevoflurane took a longer time for induction and for LMA insertion than propofol. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, with respect to LMA insertion characteristics, heart rate, mean arterial pressure. It is concluded that sevoflurane is associated with good hemodynamic stability and may prove useful incases where propofol is to be avoided. However, the ease of insertion provided with propofol is better.

Keywords: Hemodynamic changes; laryngeal mask airway; propofol; sevoflurane

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. J Pak Med Assoc. 2007 Jan;57(1):11-4 - PubMed
  2. Anaesthesia. 1999 Mar;54(3):271-6 - PubMed
  3. Anesth Pain Med. 2014 Dec 04;4(5):e20326 - PubMed
  4. Saudi Med J. 2007 Jan;28(1):36-40 - PubMed
  5. Saudi Med J. 2010 Oct;31(10):1124-9 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Anesth. 2011 Dec;23(8):616-20 - PubMed
  7. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015 Apr;98(4):388-93 - PubMed
  8. Ann Afr Med. 2014 Jul-Sep;13(3):124-9 - PubMed

Publication Types