You are here

Home » Content

Orta kulak cerrahisinde farklı anestezi yöntemlerinin postoperatif bulantı, kusma ve derlenme üzerine etkileri

The effects of different anaesthetic methods on nausea-vomiting and recovery in the middle ear surgery.

Journal Name:

  • Selçuk Tıp Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2002

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
TThe aim of this study is to investigate the effects of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia on postoperative nausea vomiting and recovery İn the middle ear surgery. The patients undergoing to middle ear surgery were randomly divided into two groups as Group S (n=19) and Group P ( n=19). AH the patients are premedicated with 0.1 mg/kg İM midazolam and the induction was done with sevoflurane in Group S and 2.5 mg/kg İV propofol in Group P. After the blockage with vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg, entübation was performed. Anesthesia maintenance was done with sevoflurane 1-3% in Group S and 8 mg/kg /h IV propofol infusion in Group P and 70% N20/02 inhalation in both. At the end of the operation, after quitting the anesthetics, the extubation times, spontaneous eye opening and recovery times were recorded. Postoperative nausea vomiting were evaluated in 2nd, 6th, 12th, 18th and 24th hours. There were no significant differences found betvveen the groups according to spontaneous eye opening and recovery times ( p>0.05). Nausea-vomiting rate was found to be high in 0-2, 2-6, 12-18 hours in Group S (p<0.05), but there was no difference in 6-12 hours ( p>0.05). Nausea-vomiting was not seen in any of the groups in 18-24 hours. İn conciusion no differences were found between ihese anesthesia methods according to postoperative recovery, although nausea-vomiting rates appearently lower in Group P. For this reason propofol anesthesia was decided to be an alternative for the middle ear surgery which has a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada, orta kulak cerrahisinde sevofluran ve propofol uygulanan anestezi yöntemlerinin postoperatif bulantı kusma ve derlenme üzerindeki etkilerinin ortaya konması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla orta kulak cerrahisi planlanan 38 olgu rastgele seçimle Grup S (n=19) ve Grup P (n- 19) olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Her iki gruba da 0.1 mg/kg İM midazolam ile premedikasyon uygulandıktan sonra, anestezi indüksiyonu Grup S olgularda sevofluran inhalasyonu, Grup P olgularda ise 2.5 mg/kg İV propofol ile sağlandı. 0.1 mg/kg İV vekuronyum ile nöromusküler blok sağlandıktan sonra endotrakeal entübasyon yapıldı. Anestezi idamesi Grup S'de %1-3 sevofluran %70 N20/O2 inhalasyonu, Grup P'de 8 mg/kg/saat propofol ve %70 N20/02 inhalasyonu ile yürütüldü.Operasyonun bitiminde anesteziklerin kesilmesinden itibaren ekstübasyon süresi, spontan göz açma süresi, derlenme süresi kaydedildi. Bulantı, kusma ve öğürme postoperatif 0-2, 2-6, 6-12, 12-18 ve 18-24. Saatlerde değerlendirildi. Gruplar arasında ekstübasyon süresi, spontan göz açma süresi ve derlenme süreleri açısından anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı (p>0.05). Bulantı kusma ve öğürme 0-2, 2-6 ve 12-18. Saatlerde Grup S olgularda istatistiksel anlamda yüksek bulunurken ( p<0.05 ), 6-12. Saatlerde farklılık saptanmadı ( p>0.05 ). 18-24. Saatlerde her iki grupta da bulantı kusma ve öğürme görülmedi. Sonuç olarak bu farklı anestezi yöntemlerinin postoperatif derlenme üzerinde belirgin farklılıkları olmamasına rağmen. Grup P olgularda bulantı kusma oranının belirgin olarak az olması nedeniyle, postoperatif bulantu kusma riski yüksek olan ona kulak girişimlerinde propofolün iyi bir alternatif olabileceği kanısına varıldı.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-orta-kulak-cerrahisinde-farkli-anestezi-yontemlerinin-postoperatif-bulanti-kusma-derlenme-uzerine-etkileri.pdf
  • 1
53-58
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Rabey PG, Smith G. Anaesthetic factors contributing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Br J Anesth 1992; 69:41-52.
2. Watcha MF, White PF. Postoperative nausea and vo-miting. Its etiology and prevention. Anaesthesiology 1992; 77: 162-84.
3. Philip BK, Kallar SK, Bogetz MS, Scheller MS, Vvetc-hler BV. A multicenter comparison of maintenance and recovery with sevoflurane or isoflurane for adult am-bulatory anesthesia. Anest Analg 1996;83:314-9.
4. Gan PJ, Glass PSA, Ginsberg B, Coleman R, Ray J. Propofol patient controlled antiemesis is a safe and ef-fective method for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesiology 1998;87: A49.
5. Cockshott İD. Propofol ( Dİprivan ) Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism an overview. Postgraduate Med J. 1985; 61 ( suppl. 3 ):45-50.
6. Fujii Y, Toyooka H, Tanaka H. Granisetron reduces the incidence of nausea and vomiting after middle ear sur¬gery. Br J Anesth 1997; 79:539-41.
7. Hokavaara P. Effect of ondansetron on nausea and vo-miting after middle ear surgery under general anest¬hesia. Br J Anesth 1996;76:316-8.

8. Collins VJ. Intravenous Anesthesia: Non Barbiturates -Non Narcotics İn principles of Anesthesiology Third Edition, Lea&Febiger, Philedeiphia, 1993, Vol: 1, Sec 27, pp.756-772.
9. Aldrete JA, Kronlik D. A postanesthetic recovery score. Anesth Analg 1970; 49:924.
10. Honkavaara P, Pyykkö I, Rutanen EM. Increased İn¬cidence of retching and vomiting during periovuiatory phase after middle ear surgery. Can J Anesth 1996; 43 (11 ): 1108-14.
11. Fteader J, Gupta A, Pedersen FM. Recovery cha-racteristic for sevoflurane or propofol based anest¬hesia for day case surgery. Açta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997;41:988-94.
12. Reves JG, Glass PSA, Lubarski DA. Nonbarbiturate Intravenous Anesthtics. in Miiier RD (ed) Anesthesia. Fourth Edition, Churchill Livingstone, New York. 1994, Volrl, Ch. 11, pp.247-289.
13. Morgan GE: Mikhail MS. Nonvoîatile Anesthetic Agents İn Clinical Anesthesiology, Second Edition, Lange, Prentice-Hall International, Inc. 1996, p. 128-148.
14. Bryson HM, Fulton BR, Faulds D. Propofol ; An update on its use on anaesthesia and conscious sedation. Drugs 1995; 50 (3): 513-59.

15. Larsson S, Asgeirsson B, Magnuson J. Propofol - fen-tanyl anesthesia compared to thiopenta! halothane with special reference to recovery and vomiting after pe-diatric strabismus surgery. Açta Anesthesiol Scand 1992;36:182-86.
16. Weir PM. Munro HM, Reynolds Pl, Lewis IH, Wilton NTC- Propofol infusion and their incidence of emesis in pediatric outpatient strabismus surgery. Anesth Analg 1993;76:760-4.
17. Dashfield AK, Birt DJ, Thurlow J, Kestin G, Langton JA. Recovery characteristic using single breath %8 se-voflurane or propofol for induction of anaesthesia in day-case arthroscopy patients. Anaesthesiology 1998; 53:1062-66.
18. Baykara N, Kıhçkan TL, indelen S, Karabey F, Toker K. Günübirlik ameliyatlarda propofol ve sevofluran anes-tezilerinin uyanma süresi ve postoperatif kusma İn-sidansı yönünden karşılaştırılması. Türk Anestezi ve Rean Cem Mecmuası 1998; 26:387-91.

19. Ebert TJ, Robinson BJ, Uhrich TD, Mackhenthun A, Pichotta P. Recovery from Anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998;89:1524-31.
20. Fredman B, Nathanson MH, Smith I, Wang J, Klein K, VVhite PF. Sevoflurane for outpatient anesthesia: A comparîson with propofol. Anesth Analg 1995; (4): 823¬8.
21. Dubin SA, Huang S, Martin E, List W, Schacher SA. Multicenter Comperative study evaluating sevoflurane versus propofol in anesthesia maintenance and re-covery in adult patients. Anesthesiology 1994; 81:3A.
22. Tang J, Chen L, White PF, VVatcha MF, VVender RH, Naruse R, Kariger R, Sloninski A. Recovery profile, costs, and patient satisfaction with propofol and se¬voflurane for fast-track office-based anesthesia. Anest¬hesiology 1999; ( 91):253-61.
23. Van Den Berg AA. A comparison of ondansetron and prochlorperazine for the prevention of nausea and vo-miting after tympanoplasty. Can J Anesth 1996; 43 (8): 939-45.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com