A comparative study between propofol vs. thiopentone plus Lidocaine effects on hemodynamic changes during laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion in urological surgery in Baghdad hospital.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36320/ajb/v10.i3.8103Keywords:
Induction, Laryngeal mask airway, Propofol, ThiopentoneAbstract
During the induction of general anesthesia, the stability of hemodynamic parameters is very important. In an idealy, all patients would be care by their anesthetists adequately to reduce all risks without interfering with the soft running of the operating list. The hemodynamic instability throughout anesthesia can be decrease by using numerous pharmacological agents and combinations have been prepared for that. Thiopentone and Propofol are intravenous anesthetics having comparatively diverse hemodynamic influences and adverse effects. Appropriate maintenance of airways securing during surgical operations is considered as the basic fundamental responsibility of an anesthesiologist. By using the modern laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with sufficient muscle relaxation, appropriate anesthetic depth and airways reflexes depression, the common problems of airway management as well as the complications after LMA insertion procedure are preventing. Our study aimed to assess the comparison effects of two anesthetic induction agents (propofol vs. thiopental- lidocaine admixture on the hemodynamic changes (heart rate (H.R), respiratory rate (R.R), oxygen saturation (SpO2), Blood pressure systolic (S.B.P) and diastolic (D.B.P) during LMA insertion for four (4) different time intervals (pre induction, at induction, at LMA insertion as well as after 5 min after LMA insertion). The current study was enrolled in Baghdad educational hospital includes one hundred fifty (150) patients who were divided into equally groups, (115 male and35 female)75 for each group, aged (20-60) years, all patients were submit to ASA (I, II), physical grade planned for elective surgical operations under general anesthesia(G.A). All the patients were evaluated clinically, assessed and investigated prior to surgery. The allergic history or adverse reactions of barbiturate or propofol were excluded. Patients were divided into: Group (A) is receiving 2.5mg/kg (I .V) of propofol as an induction agent (n=75), and Group (B) is receiving 5mg/kg (I.V) thiopentone plus lidocaine2mg as an induction agent also (n=75). The induction induces by either propofol or thiopentone as induction agent.Downloads
References
Brain AI. The Laryngeal mask-a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 1983;55: 801-5.
Benumof JL. The laryngeal mask airway and the ASA difficult airway algorithm. Anesthesiology 1996;84: 686-99.
B.C.Nirmala. A comparative study for Ease of insertion of laryngeal mask airway with propofol and thiopentone sodium.J.Dental and med.science,2014, vol.13,issue 1,64-69.
Aitkenhead A.R, Moppett I.R and Thompson J.P:Smith and AitKenhead's text of anaesthesia2013 ,6th ed ,ch22,462.
Pollard BJ, Norton ML. Principle of airway management.Wylie and Churchill-Davodson’sA practice of anesthesia. 7th edition, 2003; 443-464.
Braina IJ. The laryngeal mask - a new concept in airway management. British Journal of Anaesthesia1983; 55: 801-5
Braina IJ, Mcgheet D, Mcatteere J, Thomaas, A bu-Saadmaw, Bushman JA. The laryngeal mask airway.
Development and preliminary trials of a new type of airway.Anaesthesia1985; 40: 356-61.
Cook TM. The classic laryngeal mask airway: a tried and tested airway. What now? Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:149–152.
Brain AIJ, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’—a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84: 650–654.
Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52: 739–760.
Cook TM, Seller C, Gupta K, et al. Non-conventional uses of the Aintree Intubating Catheter in management of the difficult airway. Anaesthesia. 2007; 62: 169–174.
Critchley LA, Khaw KS. Bougie assisted insertion of ProSealTM LMA. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006; 34: 514–515.
Brimacombe J, Keller C. Successful guided insertion of a ProSealTM LMA in a patient with limited mouth-opening after failed insertion of a flexible LMA. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005;33:823–824.
Wheeler M. ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway in 120 pediatric surgical patients: a prospective evaluation of characteristics and performance. Paediatr Anaesth. 2006;16: 297–301.
O'Connor CJ Jr, Stix MS, Valade DR. Glottic insertion of the ProSeal LMA occurs in 6% of cases: a review of 627 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:199–204.
Campbell RL, Biddle C, Assudme N, et al. Fiberoptic assessment of laryngeal mask airway placement: blind insertion versus direct visual epiglottoscopy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62: 1108–1113.
Ball AJ. Laryngeal mask misplacement—a non problem. Anesth Analg. 1995; 81:204.
Maltby RJ, Beriault MT, Watson NC, et al. Gastric distension and ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: LMA-Classic vs. tracheal intubation. Can J Anesth. 2000;47:622–626.
Maltby RJ, Beriault MT, Watson NC, et al. The LMA-ProSealTM is an effective alternative to tracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anesth. 2002;49:857–862.
O' Brien B, Harmon D, Duggan M, et al. Laryngeal mask cuff inflation at removal does not affect early postoperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity. Can J Anesth. 2002;49:871–873.
Butterworth J.,Mackey D. A and Wasnick:Morgan and Mikhail,s clinical anesthesiology,2013,5th edition,185-317.
Davies N., and Cashman JN :Lee ,s synopsis of anasethesia2000,13TH edition,154.
Miller R. and Steolting R.:Basic of anesthesia, 5th edition, China,.226-229.
Yao F.S and Artusio ,s,anasethesiology problems-oriented management,2012, 7th edition,1301.
P. Scanlon, M. Carey and M. Power, “Patent Response to Laryngeal Mask Insertion after Induction of Anaesthesia with Propofol or Thiopentone,” Canadian Journal of An- esthesia, Vol. 40, No. 9, 1993, pp. 816-818.
Gauchan S., etal.:Comparitive study of propofol versus thiopentone as induction agent for insertion of laryngeal mask airway.Postgraguated Medical journal of NAMS,2011, Vol.11,N0.2, 31_35.
Rokesh K.,and Savita C.,:Comparative study between propofol and thiopentone for hemodynamic parameters during induction of general anesthesia in surgical patients. J Med Allied Sci, 2017, 7(1): 9_13.
Bano F, Zafar S, Sabbar S, Aftab S, Haider S, Sultan ST. Intravenous ketamine alternates injection pain and arterial pressure changes during the induction of anaesthesia with propofol. A comparison with lidocaine. J Coll Physician Surg Pak 2007; 17:390-3.
Djaiani G, Ribes-Pasto MP. Propofol auto-co-induction as an alternative to midazolam co-induction for ambulatory surgery. Anaesthesia. 1999 Jan; 54(1):63-7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Zina Tariq Ali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
which allows users to copy, create extracts, abstracts, and new works from the Article, alter and revise the Article, and make commercial use of the Article (including reuse and/or resale of the Article by commercial entities), provided the user gives appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI), provides a link to the license, indicates if changes were made and the licensor is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work.
