RESUMEN
Background and Objectives: Sevoflurane and desflurane virtually equally dissolve in blood gases, yet current research suggests that desflurane helps in a quick return of airway reflex than sevoflurane however the return of cognitive activity fluctuates greatly. In order to compare the lengths of time required to recover after sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia, the current research was conducted. Materials and Methods: Current study was randomized that included 100 subjects who were posted for cholecystectomy (elective). Only adult and non-obese subjects were included in the study. The intended anesthetic agents sevoflurane and desflurane were utilized in the study and all the protocols were followed for the surgery. After the end of the surgery, tests for regaining cognitive function and airway reflexes were carried out, and different time intervals were recorded. The values were recorded and compared for the variances while considering the P < 0.05 as significant. Results: The mean T1 was 8.19 ± 3.28 min for sevoflurane and was 5.82 ± 4.02 min. There was no significant variance between the two agents for the T1, 2 (P = 0.013 and 0.110 respectively). After the inhalation anesthetics ceased at T1, desflurane patients responded to verbal commands more quickly than sevoflurane patients (5.824.02 vs. 8.193.28 min). The SOMCT and swallowing test were similarly completed more quickly by desflurane-treated patients than by sevoflurane-treated patients (T3VST4) (13.693.37 vs. 10.024.86 min, P = 0.008 and (14.094.30 vs. 9.824.50 min, P 0.001, respectively). For the T3, 4-time intervals, there was a significant difference between the sevoflurane and desflurane groups. Conclusion: Desflurane causes patients to recover more quickly from laparoscopic cholecystectomy under controlled circumstances than sevoflurane does.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Treating orbital injuries is interesting and difficult in the facial trauma. The balance in facial proportions and also the facial esthetics are required to achieve an anatomical harmony. OBJECTIVE: To compare the functional results of individual reconstruction of orbital floor using either titanium mesh or Medpor in terms of various factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were two study groups including eight subjects with orbital floor fracture, namely A (Medpor) and B (titanium mesh). Various parameters were analyzed postoperatively at intervals of 1 week, 3 week, 6th week, and 3 months after the surgery. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Comparison of the different time points with respect to pain scores in the two study groups by Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done. P value was significant in the study Group A with P = 0.0431* and was insignificant in the study Group B with P = 0.1088. RESULTS: All three cases of titanium mesh in orbital floor reconstruction had signs of infection, tenderness, and radiographic proof after 1 week in two subjects and 3 weeks in one patient. Pain was seen in all eight patients 1 week postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Although orbital reconstruction is a technique sensitive procedure both Medpore and Titanium mesh functions.
