Key result
Propofol (n=15) and isoflurane (n=15) were equally feasible as maintenance anesthetics for gynecologic laparoscopies, with faster initial awakening at 2 minutes postextubation in the propofol group.
Why the study?
Does propofol improve recovery compared to isoflurane in patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy?
RCT (n=30)
Does propofol improve recovery compared to isoflurane in patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy?
Propofol and isoflurane are both feasible for gynaecological laparoscopy, with propofol offering faster initial awakening but potentially higher postoperative pain and bradycardia.
Both agents remain viable for maintenance; Level 5 data leaves open whether faster awakening improves overall recovery.
Propofol (n = 15) and isoflurane (n = 15), both administered by clinical and haemodynamic criteria, proved to be equally feasible as sole maintenance anaesthetics (combined with 0.5 mg alfentanil and suxamethonium) for gynaecologic laparoscopies. Two min postextubation, the number of patients awake and responsive to commands was higher in the group given propofol. Later recovery till 2 h postanaesthesia was similar for the groups, except that the propofol patients more frequently required oxycodone for pain relief, and that three of them (NS) were bradycardic. Emesis was rare in both groups. The rapid recovery without emesis qualifies these two anaesthetics for gynaecologic laparoscopies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M. OlKKONEN (1994) conducted an RCT in Gynaecologic laparoscopies (n=30). Propofol vs. Isoflurane was evaluated on Feasibility as sole maintenance anaesthetics. Propofol (n=15) and isoflurane (n=15) were equally feasible as maintenance anesthetics for gynecologic laparoscopies, with faster initial awakening at 2 minutes postextubation in the propofol group.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: