A comparative study of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion

Abstract

Background: Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) is a useful advent in the airway management, filling a niche between the face mask and the tracheal tube in terms of both the anatomical position and the degree of invasiveness. Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic agent which depresses both laryngeal and pharyngeal reflexes and provides profound relaxation of pharyngeal muscles. Incidences of gagging coughing, laryngospasm are less while using propofol than thiopentone. Sevoflurane is pleasant smelling, non-irritating to the airway, has a low blood gas solubility coefficient, good muscle relaxant effect, and high inspired concentration can be given without side effects or discomfort. It allows rapid smooth inhalation induction with excellent recovery characteristics. Objective: To compare the quality of the condition provided for successful LMA insertion by sevoflurane induction with propofol induction methods. Materials and Methods: Study was carried out in 100 patients at the New Civil Hospital, Surat. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups comprising of 50 patients each. In Group-P induction with propofol 3 mg/kg intravenously over 30 seconds and in GroupS induction have done with inhalational sevoflurane 8% and nitrous oxide 50% in oxygen. Results: The mean pulse rate before induction in Group-P was 79.92±9.18 beats/min and in GroupS it was 80.96±10.11 beats/min, p>0.05. Following LMA insertion the mean pulse rate increased in both the groups. However, the mean pulse rate did not differ significantly between the groups at any time following LMA insertion, p>0.05. The mean systolic blood pressure before induction in Group-P was 119.92±9.44 mmHg and in GroupS it was 118.40±8.60 mmHg, p>0.05. Comparing the 2 groups, this difference was insignificant. Following LMA insertion the mean systolic blood pressure decreased but mean systolic blood pressure did not differ significantly on comparing both groups at any time following LMA insertion, p>0.05. The mean SPO 2 % at baseline in Group-P was 99.54±0.89% and in GroupS it was 99.72±12.7%, p>0.05. The mean time for cessation of verbal communication in Group-P was 32.9±7.07 seconds and in GroupS , it was 33.7±5.13 seconds. The mean time to successful LMA insertion in Group-P was 79.4±27.63 seconds and in GroupS , it was 128.5±19.46 seconds, p<0.001. Comparing the groups, the difference between both the groups was highly statistically significant. The mean time to successful LMA insertion was faster in Group-P compared to GroupS. In Group-P, in 40 (80%) patients, LMA insertion was done in the first attempt within the mean time of 68.12±12.14 seconds while in GroupS , in 32 (64%) patients, LMA was inserted in the first attempt within the mean time of 117.6±14.41 seconds. Comparing both groups, this difference was highly significant p<0.001. The second attempt was required in 8 (16%) patients in Group-P with the mean time of LMA insertion of 120.6 seconds compared to in 14 (28%) patients in GroupS with a mean time of LMA insertion of 143 seconds while comparing both the grou...

Postoperative discomfort and emergence delirium in children undergoing dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia: comparison of nasal tracheal intubation and laryngeal mask airway

“… 24 Laryngoscopy and muscle relaxation are not necessary for the insertion of an LMAw. 25 The LMAw can even be inserted in awake patients with or without muscle relaxant. In the current study, recovery time in the LMAw group was significantly shorter than the NTI group, which was similar to the results of Zhao et al 6 These difference may be due to muscle relaxant not being used in the LMAw group.…”

Comparative study of sevoflurane versus propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults

“…The second attempt was required in 8 (16%) patients in Group-P with the mean time of LMA insertion of 120.6 seconds compared to in 14 (28%) patients in Group-S with a mean time of LMA insertion of 143 seconds while comparing both the groups. 16…”

Comparison of inhalational vital capacity induction with sevoflurane to intravenous induction with propofol for insertion of laryngeal mask airway in adults: A randomized study

“…[ 16 ] and Patel et al . [ 25 ] Patient movement was another parameter where no difference was found between groups. Movement during insertion of LMA may indicate light plane of anesthesia and can lead to various complications and make insertion of LMA difficult.…”