Comparison of Respiratory Complications of Propofol and Isoflurane among Six-Months to Two-Years-Old Infants Undergoing Inguinal Herniorrhaphy under General Anesthesia with Laryngeal Mask Airway

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Intern, Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: The use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for infants is increasing. But, there is not sufficient research on the anesthetic drugs used for infants whose airway is supported with laryngeal mask airway. This study aimed to compare the respiratory complications of propofol and isoflurane in these infants.Methods: Ninety 6- to 24-months old infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy under general anesthesia with laryngeal mask airway were randomly allocated into two groups of 45. The first group received propofol and the second received isoflurane as maintenance of anesthesia. Peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were recorded every 5 minutes. In addition, for each patient MAP, SpO2, respiratory complication, nausea and vomiting were recorded every 15 minutes in the recovery room.Findings: Patients receiving propofol had significantly lower ETCO2, heart rate and MAP (P < 0.01 for all). SPO2 was lower at 15th, 25th, 30th minutes of the surgery and on admission, 15th and 45th minute of recovery in patients receiving isoflurane; but the differences were not statistically significant.Conclusion: Regarding the results, propofol is probably a better choice for maintenance of general anesthesia with laryngeal mask airway in infants.

Keywords

References

  1. Zhu XY, Lin BC, Zhang QS, Ye HM, Yu RJ. A prospective evaluation of the efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway during neonatal resuscitation. Resuscitation 2011; 82(11): 1405-9.
  2. Yu SH, Beirne OR. Laryngeal mask airways have a lower risk of airway complications compared with endotracheal intubation: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68(10): 2359-76.
  3. Mathis MR, Haydar B, Taylor EL, Morris M, Malviya SV, Christensen RE, et al. Failure of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and Classic in the pediatric surgical patient: a study of clinical predictors and outcomes. Anesthesiology 2013; 119(6): 1284-95.
  4. Goldmann K. Supraglottic airways in infants and children. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2013; 48(4): 246-50. [In German].
  5. Gao P, Yan M. Observational study of complications connected with the use of the laryngeal mask airway and sevoflurane anesthesia in children. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2013; 93(33): 2677-9. [In Chinese].
  6. von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Boda K, Schwab C, Sims C, Johnson C, Habre W. Laryngeal mask airway is associated with an increased incidence of adverse respiratory events in children with recent upper respiratory tract infections. Anesthesiology 2007; 107(5): 714-9.
  7. Stevanovic A, Rossaint R, Fritz HG, Froeba G, Heine J, Puehringer FK, et al. Airway reactions and emergence times in general laryngeal mask airway anaesthesia: a meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015; 32(2): 106-16.
  8. Sahu DK, Kaul V, Parampill R. Comparison of isoflurane and sevoflurane in anaesthesia for day care surgeries using classical laryngeal mask airway. Indian J Anaesth 2011; 55(4): 364-9.
  9. Heard C, Harutunians M, Houck J, Joshi P, Johnson K, Lerman J. Propofol anesthesia for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and a laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 2015; 120(1): 157-64.
  10. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Hoermann C, Loeckinger A, Kleinsasser A. Pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. A comparison of sevoflurane, isoflurane and propofol. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22(8): 630-3.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 34, Issue 409 - Serial Number 409
November and December 2017
Pages 1453-1458

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 September 2016
  • Revise Date: 01 June 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics