Key result
Propofol-ketamine prolongs emergence by ~7 minutes and delays recovery vs propofol-remifentanil.
Why the study?
This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation during surgical extraction of all 4 third molars.
Does propofol-ketamine compared to propofol-remifentanil improve emergence and recovery times in patients undergoing third molar surgery?
RCT (n=37)
double-blinded
randomized
Does propofol-ketamine compared to propofol-remifentanil improve emergence and recovery times in patients undergoing third molar surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 13.6% vs 7.1%
p-value: p=.0009
Propofol-ketamine is less effective than propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation in short oral surgeries due to prolonged emergence and recovery times.
Propofol-remifentanil yields faster emergence and recovery than propofol-ketamine; supports preference for ambulatory oral surgery and invites regimen comparisons in other short procedures.
This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kramer et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in surgical extraction of all 4 third molars (n=37). propofol-ketamine vs. propofol-remifentanil was evaluated on emergence time (minutes) (p=.0009). Propofol-ketamine deep sedation for third molar extraction resulted in significantly prolonged emergence (13.6 vs 7.1 minutes, P=.0009) and recovery times compared to propofol-remifentanil.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: