This case report deals with pneumothorax during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a young woman with no history of severe pulmonary disease. After inflating the capnoperitoneum, pulse oximetry and capnography raised suspicion of pneumothorax whereas the physical examination showed no irregularities. Surgical drapes provided a lack of information from percussion and auscultation. Changing respiratory parameters including the use of pressure-controlled ventilation in absence of tension pneumothorax enabled sufficient ventilation until the insertion of a chest tube. There were no further postoperative complications. Pulse oximetry, capnography and relaxometry proved helpful in monitoring. There may be a benefit from the use of pressure-controlled-ventilation in certain situations, if all changes in volume-controlled-ventilation fail.
After lung resection, early extubation and the rapid return of the patients ability to cooperate is the predominant goal. Propofol anaesthesia is characterised by rapid awakening and recovery of cognitive and psychomotor functions and is consequently desirable for such operations. Experience so far in lung surgery, however, is limited. Besides the level of consciousness we investigated various spirometric parameters after lung resection. Total intravenous anaesthesia was performed with propofol, while balanced anaesthesia was performed with isoflurane. METHODS. A total of 93 patients evaluated electively for wedge excision or lobectomy were enrolled in an open, prospective, randomised, interindividual comparative study. Sixty-three patients could be evaluated with complete data sets. In the evening and the morning before the operation the patients were premedicated orally with clorazepate 0.5-0.7 mg/kg. Anaesthesia was induced in group 1 with propofol (1.0-2.5 mg/kg) and maintained with propofol (4-12 mg/kg) in 50% O2/air. The patients in group 2 received methohexital (1-2 mg/kg) for induction and isoflurane (0.4-2.0 vol%) in 50% O2/air for the maintenance of general anaesthesia. In both groups analgesia was achieved by using fentanyl (up to 10 micrograms/kg) and muscle relaxation by using atracurium. Psychomotor tests (minimal mental state, reaction time) were performed the day before the operation (t1), immediately prior to induction of anaesthesia (t2) and 5 min, 30 min, 60 min, 90 min, 24 h, and 7 days after extubation (t3-t8). Spirometry (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FEV1; forced vital capacity, FVC; peak expiratory flow, PEF) was carried out at times t1, t2 and t5-t8. RESULTS. The two groups were comparable regarding preoperative status (age, sex, preoperative risk score, psychomotor tests, and spirometric values) and the operation performed (wedge excision/lobectomy, duration of anaesthesia). The extubation time was slightly shorter in the propofol group (18 +/- 8 min) than in the isoflurane group (20 +/- 6 min). Also, the results of the psychomotor tests were somewhat better in the propofol group than those in the isoflurane group. The clearest differences were found in the early postoperative period, but not all differences were significant. Statistically highly significant differences between the two groups were found for the three spirometric parameters. Based on the FEV1 value of the 7th postoperative day, FEV1 taken 60 min after extubation declined by 27.9% in the propofol group vs. 51.7% in the isoflurane group (P = 0.01). At 90 min after extubation the corresponding decline in the propofol group was 26.6%, in the isoflurane group 51.1% (P = 0.003). In addition, the decline of FVC and PEF measured 60 min and 90 min after extubation was significantly smaller in the propofol group than in the isoflurane group. CONCLUSION. The postoperative impairment of lung function after lung resection under propofol anaesthesia is statistically significantly smaller than under isoflurane anaesthesia. Total intr...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.