Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol in combination with remifentanil on the quality of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery.
Shu, Zhuolin; Lin, Tiancheng; Xu, Dingchen; Zheng, Shuyuan.
Affiliation
  • Shu Z; Department of Anesthesiology, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
  • Lin T; Department of Anesthesiology, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
  • Xu D; Department of Anesthesiology, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
  • Zheng S; Department of Anesthesiology, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 11: 1382724, 2024.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39114829
ABSTRACT

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of sevoflurane + remifentanil (Sev + Rem) and propofol + remifentanil (Pro + Rem) on the postoperative recovery quality of patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery to determine which anesthesia regimen provides a better overall recovery experience.

Methods:

Sixty patients were divided into two groups based on the treatments they underwent Sev + Rem (n = 30) and Pro + Rem (n = 30). The Sev + Rem group received sevoflurane inhalation (0.5%, increasing to 0.5-4%) and remifentanil via target-controlled infusion. The Pro + Rem group received propofol [4-8 mg/(kg·h)] and remifentanil via target-controlled infusion. Anesthesia depth was maintained at a bispectral index of 40-60 in both groups. Perioperative data, hemodynamic parameters, and postoperative recovery quality were assessed.

Results:

Compared to the Pro + Rem group, the dose of remifentanil in the Sev + Rem group was significantly lower (1693.67 ± 331.75 vs. 2,959 ± 359.77, p < 0.001), the proportion of patients used norepinephrine was markedly higher [16 (53.33) vs. 8 (26.67), p = 0.035], and the time of extubation was earlier (356.33 ± 63.17 vs. 400.3 ± 50.11, p = 0.004). The Hemodynamic results showed the HR in the Sev + Rem group was faster than that in the Pro + Rem group at the beginning of surgery and 1 h post-surgery (67.37 ± 4.40 vs. 64.33 ± 4.44, p = 0.010, 69.07 ± 4.23 vs. 66.40 ± 5.03, p = 0.030). In regard to the assessment of postoperative recovery quality, the emotional state scores in the Sev + Rem group were significantly lower than the Pro + Rem group (36.83 ± 2.79 vs. 39.50 ± 4.64, p = 0.009).

Conclusion:

The two anesthesia modalities (Sev + Rem and Pro + Rem) have their advantages and disadvantages for patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery and have comparable effects on postoperative recovery quality.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: China Country of publication: Switzerland

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: China Country of publication: Switzerland