BackgroundTracheal intubation without muscle relaxants is usually performed with remifentanil and propofol or sevoflurane. Remifentanil 1.0 to 4.0 μg·kg-1 and propofol 2.0-3.0 mg·kg-1 or sevoflurane up to 8.0 Vol% provide acceptable, i.e. excellent or good intubating conditions. We hypothesized that sevoflurane 1.0 MAC would provide acceptable intubating conditions when combined with propofol and remifentanil.MethodsEighty-three patients to be intubated were randomised to two groups. The SEVO group received propofol 1.5 mg kg-1, remifentanil 0.30 μg kg min-1 and sevoflurane 1.0 MAC; the MR group received the same doses of propofol and remifentanil plus rocuronium 0.45 mg kg-1. We evaluated intubation and extubation conditions, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and bispectral index (BIS). The vocal cords were examined for injury by videolaryngoscopy before and 24 hours after surgery.ResultsAcceptable intubating conditions were seen more frequently with rocuronium than with sevoflurane: 97% versus 82%; p = 0.03; the subscore for vocal cords was comparable: 100% versus 98%. MAP before intubation decreased significantly compared with the MAP at baseline to the same extent in both groups; ephedrine IV was given in 15 (SEVO) versus 16 (MR) patients; p = 0.93. BIS at tracheal intubation was 27 (13-65) in the SEVO group, 29 (14-62) in the MR group; p = 0.07. Vocal cord injuries (oedema, haematoma) were similar: 4 patients in each group.ConclusionsOverall intubating conditions were better when rocuronium was used; the subscore for vocal cords was comparable. The incidence of side effects was the same in the two groups.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT 01591031.

ObjectiveThe overall intubation conditions after tracheal intubation with remifentanil, propofol, and sevoflurane at 1.0 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) are worse than with rocuronium at 0.45 mg/kg. Therefore, we compared the intubation conditions and laryngeal morbidity (vocal cord injuries, hoarseness, and sore throat) with sevoflurane at 1.2 and 1.4 MAC versus 1.0 MAC.MethodsIn this prospective clinical trial, 90 patients were randomized to 3 groups: the sevoflurane 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4 MAC groups. At 3 min, tracheal intubation was performed and the patients’ intubation conditions were assessed. The vocal cords were examined for injury by videolaryngoscopy. Additionally, the incidence and severity of laryngeal morbidity were compared between women and men.ResultsAcceptable intubation conditions were seen in 72% of the patients without significant differences between the groups. Overall, vocal cord injuries (oedema) occurred in three (4%) patients. Women reported sore throat more often than men (51% vs. 21%, respectively).ConclusionsIntubation conditions were not improved with higher sevoflurane concentrations. The incidence and severity of sore throat were greater in women than men.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT 01896245

Anesthesia can be maintained with propofol or sevoflurane. Volatile anesthetics increase neuromuscular block of muscle relaxants. We tested the hypothesis, that sevoflurane would cause less vocal cord injuries than an intravenous anesthesia with propofol. In this prospective trial, 65 patients were randomized in 2 groups: SEVO group, anesthesia with sevoflurane, and TIVA group, total intravenous anesthesia with propofol. Intubating and extubating conditions were evaluated. Vocal cord injuries were examined by stroboscopy before and 24 and 72 h after surgery; hoarseness and sore throat were assessed up to 72 h after surgery. Hoarseness and sore throat were comparable between both groups (not significant). Similar findings were observed for vocal cord injuries: 9 (SEVO) versus 5 (TIVA) patients; P = 0.36; the overall incidence was 24%. Type of vocal cord injuries: 9 erythema and 5 edema of the vocal folds. Neuromuscular block was significantly longer in the SEVO group compared with the TIVA group: 71 (range: 38–148) min versus 52 (range: 21–74) min; P < 0.001. Five patients (TIVA group) versus 11 patients (SEVO group) needed neostigmine to achieve a TOF ratio of 1.0 (P = 0.14). Under anesthesia with propofol laryngeal injuries were not increased; the risk for residual curarization, however, was lower compared with sevoflurane.