We have studied the effectiveness and sequelae of low-dose suxamethonium in 60 day-case oral surgery patients requiring nasal intubation. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and alfentanil; 60 patients were allocated randomly to three groups of 20 patients and received no suxamethonium, suxamethonium 0.25 mg kg-1 or 0.5 mg kg-1. All patients received i.v. fentanyl and diclofenac 100 mg rectally for analgesia. Good intubating conditions were produced in all 20 patients receiving suxamethonium 0.25 mg kg-1, in 19 patients receiving suxamethonium 0.5 mg kg-1 and in 11 patients not receiving a neuromuscular blocker. The incidence of postoperative myalgia after suxamethonium 0.25 mg kg-1 (20%) did not differ significantly from the incidence after propofol and alfentanil alone (28%).
We studied 42 patients undergoing oral surgery under local anaesthesia with i.v. sedation, allocated randomly to receive either methohexitone (group M) or propofol (group P) for patient-controlled sedation (PCS). Group M patients self-administered 2.5-mg (0.5 ml) bolus doses of methohexitone and group P, 5-mg (0.5 ml) doses of propofol, without a lockout. The 0.5-ml bolus dose was delivered over 7.2 s for both drugs. The procedure was completed satisfactorily in all patients. Patients in both groups achieved their desired levels of sedation. No patient lost verbal contact. Group M patients had higher heart rates during the procedure. The lowest SpO2 values recorded were 92% and 95% for group P and group M, respectively. Immediately after operation patients in group M reported that they felt more sleepy than those in group P (P < 0.01) but there were no differences at subsequent times. The results of the psychomotor tests were comparable for the two groups after operation, except for the "posting box task" at 15 min after operation when the mean decrement (compared with preoperative performance) was -3% for group P and -13% for group M (P < 0.05). More patients in group P complained of pain in their hand. We conclude that methohexitone is a suitable alternative drug to propofol for PCS.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.