Comparacao da recuperacao de anestesia venosa com propofol e anestesia inalatoria com sevoflurano para laparoscopia ginecologica


Backgrounds and Objectives: Both continuous venous anesthesia with propofol and inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane propitiate fast arousal with few side effects. The aim of this study was to compare the arousal and post anesthestic recovery times in patients submitted to these two agents. Methods: Forty three patient aged 18 to 50 years, physical status I or II, submitted to gynecological laparoscopy were distributed in two groups: G1 - propofol in continuous infusion of 115 μ -1.min -1 and G2 sevoflurane. All the patients were pre-medicated with 7.5 mg midazolam, sufentanil 0.5 μ -1, propofol 2 -1, atracurium 0.5 -1, N 2O in 50% of oxygen in a no-rebreathing system. The depth of the anesthesia and arousal time were assessed by the Bispectral index (BIS). The time between end of anesthesia and eye opening, time for command response and time for orientation were also evaluated. Results: The times recorded in minutes were: G1 - eye opening 8.2 ± 2.9, command response 8.6 ± 3.1, orientation 9.8 ± 3.4, recovery 31.6 ± 3.8; G2 - eye opening 4.5 ± 3, command response 4.9 ± 3.4, orientation 6.2 ± 3.4, recovery 66 ± 8. Except the recovery time, all the values were larger in G1. Conclusions: Both intravenous propofol or inhalational sevoflurane were considered excellent anesthetic techniques as to recovery time and recovery room discharge. Sevoflurane provided an earlier arousal with a longer recovery room stay as compared to propofol.



Analgesics, opioids: sufentanil, Anesthetics, volatile: sevoflurane, Hipnotics: propofol, Surgery, gynecological: laparoscopy, atracurium, midazolam, nitrous oxide plus oxygen, propofol, sevoflurane, sufentanil, adult, anesthesia level, anesthetic recovery, arousal, clinical article, continuous infusion, female, gynecologic surgery, human, inhalational drug administration, intravenous drug administration, laparoscopic surgery, premedication

Como citar

Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia, v. 49, n. 2, p. 84-88, 1999.