Hypotensive anesthesia during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a comparative study of remifentanil versus magnesium sulfate infusion

M. Zaky, A. Saleh
{"title":"Hypotensive anesthesia during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a comparative study of remifentanil versus magnesium sulfate infusion","authors":"M. Zaky, A. Saleh","doi":"10.4103/1687-7934.238486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The aim of this study was to compare the adequacy and outcome of controlled hypotensive anesthesia using remifentanil or magnesium sulfate during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Patients and methods The study included 104 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis assigned for FESS. They were randomly divided into two equal groups: group R received remifentanil loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 60 s, followed by 0.15 μg/kg/min infusion, and group M received magnesium sulfate loading dose of 40 mg/kg over 10 min, followed by 15 mg/kg/h infusion. Hemodynamic variables were noninvasively monitored and expressed every 15 min. Operative field bleeding and subsequently its visibility were graded using a six-point scale. Recovery time was estimated as the time until the patient achieves a modified Aldrete scoring of 11 or more. The degree of sedation was assessed using the Brussels Sedation Scale. Results The mean collective heart rate and mean arterial pressure measures were signifi cantly low in group R compared with group M. The mean amount of collected blood loss and total field visibility scale score were significantly lower with remifentanil than with magnesium sulfate. The frequency of patients who achieved early recovery was significantly higher with remifentanil with significantly shorter time to achieve modified Aldrete scoring of 11 or more compared with magnesium sulfate. Conclusion Controlled hypotensive anesthesia minimized bleeding and provided excellent fi eld visibility during FESS. Remifentanil provided superior outcome manifested as signifi cant reduction in operative field bleeding, better field visibility, and shorter operative time compared with magnesium sulfate. In addition, remifentanil provided early recovery without postoperative sedation and thus allowed FESS to be conducted as a day-case surgery.","PeriodicalId":7492,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":"2 1","pages":"124 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-7934.238486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the adequacy and outcome of controlled hypotensive anesthesia using remifentanil or magnesium sulfate during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Patients and methods The study included 104 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis assigned for FESS. They were randomly divided into two equal groups: group R received remifentanil loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 60 s, followed by 0.15 μg/kg/min infusion, and group M received magnesium sulfate loading dose of 40 mg/kg over 10 min, followed by 15 mg/kg/h infusion. Hemodynamic variables were noninvasively monitored and expressed every 15 min. Operative field bleeding and subsequently its visibility were graded using a six-point scale. Recovery time was estimated as the time until the patient achieves a modified Aldrete scoring of 11 or more. The degree of sedation was assessed using the Brussels Sedation Scale. Results The mean collective heart rate and mean arterial pressure measures were signifi cantly low in group R compared with group M. The mean amount of collected blood loss and total field visibility scale score were significantly lower with remifentanil than with magnesium sulfate. The frequency of patients who achieved early recovery was significantly higher with remifentanil with significantly shorter time to achieve modified Aldrete scoring of 11 or more compared with magnesium sulfate. Conclusion Controlled hypotensive anesthesia minimized bleeding and provided excellent fi eld visibility during FESS. Remifentanil provided superior outcome manifested as signifi cant reduction in operative field bleeding, better field visibility, and shorter operative time compared with magnesium sulfate. In addition, remifentanil provided early recovery without postoperative sedation and thus allowed FESS to be conducted as a day-case surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
功能性内窥镜鼻窦手术期间的低血压麻醉:瑞芬太尼与硫酸镁输注的比较研究
目的比较功能性内窥镜鼻窦手术(FESS)中使用瑞芬太尼或硫酸镁控制降压麻醉的充分性和效果。患者和方法本研究纳入104例慢性鼻窦炎患者。随机分为两组:R组给予瑞芬太尼负荷剂量1 μg/kg, 60 s后滴注0.15 μg/kg/min; M组给予硫酸镁负荷剂量40 mg/kg, 10 min后滴注15 mg/kg/h。无创监测血流动力学变量,每15分钟表达一次。手术野出血及其可见性采用6分制进行分级。恢复时间估计为患者达到修改Aldrete评分11或更高的时间。采用布鲁塞尔镇静量表评估镇静程度。结果R组患者的平均集体心率和平均动脉压测量值明显低于m组。瑞芬太尼组患者的平均采血量和总视野可见度评分明显低于硫酸镁组。与硫酸镁相比,瑞芬太尼组患者早期恢复的频率明显更高,达到改良Aldrete评分11分及以上的时间明显更短。结论有控制的低血压麻醉减少了FESS术中出血,并提供了良好的视野。与硫酸镁相比,瑞芬太尼提供了更好的结果,表现为术野出血显著减少,术野能见度更好,手术时间更短。此外,瑞芬太尼在术后无需镇静的情况下提供早期恢复,从而使FESS作为日间手术进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of early postoperative hypoxemia: a comparative performance of Hudson face mask with nasal prongs Aprepitant for attenuation of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a decrease in postoperative analgesic needs after laparoscopic surgery Awake orotracheal intubation using fiberoptic bronchoscope versus Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients Tramadol versus hyoscine-N-butylbromide as intrapartum analgesics during the first stage of labor Effect of dexmedetomidine infusion on desflurane requirement and perioperative hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic gastric sleeve operations: a study based on entropy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1