Comparison of Infusions of Propofol and Methohexitone to Provide Light General Anaesthesia During Surgery With Regional Blockade

Jessop, E.; Grounds, RM; Morgan, M.; Lumley, Jean

doi:10.1093/bja/57.12.1173

Cited by 42 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this study gave no data on recovery times for propofol and methohexitone. Another study [14] of premedicated patients given either propofol or methohexitone to maintain general anaesthesia during surgery with regional blockade found maintenance doses of 0.103 mg kg" 1 min" 1 of propofol and 0.104 mg kg" 1 min" 1 of methohexitone, indicating a relative potency of 1. In agreement with the results of our study, the recovery time after propofol anaesthesia was less than 50% of the recovery time after methohexitone anaesthesia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closed-Loop Feedback Control of Propofol Anaesthesia by Quantitative Eeg Analysis in Humans

Schwilden

Stoeckel

Schüttler

1989

British Journal of Anaesthesia

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Propofol was administered for 2 h to 11 volunteers by an adaptive feedback control algorithm based on quantitative EEG analysis. Median EEG frequency served as the control variable. The range 2-3 Hz was chosen as the target range of control. During the feedback period, volunteers did not respond to commands and eyelash reflex was abolished. An average median frequency of 2.5 (SD 0.3) Hz was obtained by administering propofol 1452 (262) mg within 2 h. Time to recovery was 17.9 (8.0) min. Compared with a study with methohexitone using the same approach, the relative potency of propofol was 0.72. The mean recovery time was less than half that observed after methohexitone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closed-Loop Feedback Control of Propofol Anaesthesia by Quantitative Eeg Analysis in Humans

Schwilden

Stoeckel

Schüttler

1989

British Journal of Anaesthesia

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neither did Cundy & Arunasalam (7) or Logan and colleagues (17), when using the new formulation of propofol. Others found a shorter recovery time in patients anesthetized with propofol compared to methohexital (10,18). Mac-Kenzie & Grant (19) found less postoperative impairment of choice reaction time and critical flicker fusion threshold, when propofol was used for the induction of anesthesia than following methohexital and thiopental induction.…”

Section: Methohexitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of induction with and first hour of recovery from brief propofol and methohexital anesthesia

Boysen

Sánchez

Ravn

et al. 1990

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anesthesia and recovery during the first hour after propofol and methohexital anesthesia for termination of pregnancy, lasting about 12 min, were compared, the latter in a double-blind manner by means of psychomotor tests (coin counting and continuous auditory reaction time). Muscle movements and hiccups were seen significantly more frequently during methohexital inductions. No differences were seen regarding pain at the site of injection or apnea between the groups. At 15 min after the last dose of anesthetic, recovery after methohexital was ahead of that after propofol, but after 1 h, psychomotor performance was better in the propofol group. Side-effects during recovery were few, and incidences did not differ significantly. Although the difference in reaction time test was significant, it was hardly large enough to be of any clinical importance. Both drugs are useful for brief outpatient anesthesia, but smoother induction gives propofol an edge over methohexital.

show abstract

“…Recovery 11 from sedation was faster with propofol with no adverse effect, propofol has faster recovery time then diazepam corroborated by Valtonen and Polster MR et al…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Evaluation of Propofol as a General Anesthetic Agent for Minor Oral Surgical Procedure

Jaggi¹,

Kalra²,

Baghla³

et al. 2013

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nausea and vomiting following anesthesia is a distressing problem for the patient as it increases the recovery time, intensity of nursing care and delays discharge. The aim of randomized controlled single blind study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subhypnotic doses of propofol for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in day care management of cases in oral and maxillofacial surgeries. Twenty-five patient of ASA-1 with age ranging from 12 to 40 years were scheduled for various maxillofacial surgical cases like fracture, cyst enucleation, surgical removal of 3rd molar, etc. were given propofol at the dose of 2 to 2.5 mg/kg as induction dose and sedation was maintained with the dose 5 to 10 mg/min. There was no significant effect on heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation intraoperatively. In conclusion, a subhypnotic dose of propofol is fast acting, safe and easily controllable, short acting general anesthetic agent with rapid recovery. The study found that the PONV was significantly reduced in the patient with propofol, no hemodynamic derangements were noted in the postoperative period.

show abstract

Comparison of Infusions of Propofol and Methohexitone to Provide Light General Anaesthesia During Surgery With Regional Blockade

Cited by 42 publications

References 19 publications

Closed-Loop Feedback Control of Propofol Anaesthesia by Quantitative Eeg Analysis in Humans

Closed-Loop Feedback Control of Propofol Anaesthesia by Quantitative Eeg Analysis in Humans

Comparison of induction with and first hour of recovery from brief propofol and methohexital anesthesia

Evaluation of Propofol as a General Anesthetic Agent for Minor Oral Surgical Procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About