ABSTRACT
The study.was carried out on 40 patients of both sexes aged from 15-55 years old and with body weight between 55-85 kg scheduled for direct laryngoscopic procedures. Patients were divided randomly into 2 groups, 20 patients each.In the first group, propofol 2 mg/kg was used for induction of anaesthesia and maintained by continuous infusion of 200 micro g/kg/min for 10 minutes, followed by 150 micro g/kg/min for the next 10 minutes and 100 micro g /kg/min Thereafter .In the second group, midazolam 0.3 mg /kg was used for induction and maintained by infusion of 1 micro g/kg/min if the procedure lasted more than 20 minutes. At the recovery placebo was used to reverse the effect of propofol and fIumazeniI was used to reverse the effect of midazolam. Perianaesthetic care was the same for both groups. In both groups we evaluated the operative condition [adequate, inadequate and poor] and the quality of recovery [recovery time, degree of sedation, cooperation and orientation to time and space]. We found that both propofol and midazolam offered an adequate operative anaesthetic condition needed for the procedure but the quality of recovery of propofol was better than that of midazolam even after fIumazenil administration reaching to a conclusion to leave the midazolam - fIumazenil technique to be used in the poor cardiovascular risk patients or in a situation where propofol is not available or contraindicated