Randomised, cross-over comparison of sevoflurane and ketamine-midazolam anaesthesia in children undergoing extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the haemodynamic responses, adverse events and recovery characteristics associated with sevoflurane and ketamine-midazolam anaesthesia for paediatric extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. METHODS: Twenty children aged 2-11 years, who were undergoing two consecutive lithotripsy sessions at an interval of 4 weeks were enrolled and randomised to receive either inhalation or dissociative anaesthesia at their first session. The alternative anaesthesia protocol was used at their second session. Inhalation anaesthesia was induced with 8% sevoflurane and 70% N(2)O in oxygen; 10 microg/kg atropine and 2 microg/kg fentanyl were then administered. Anaesthesia was maintained with 2%-3% end-tidal sevoflurane and 70% N(2)O in oxygen via a laryngeal mask airway. Dissociative anaesthesia was induced intravenously with 10 mug/kg atropine, 0.05 mg/kg midazolam, 1.5 mg/kg ketamine and maintained with 0.5-1.0 mg/kg ketamine. Haemodynamic parameters were recorded before and after induction, after the start of the procedure, and every 10 minutes thereafter. Postoperatively, the times to responding to command, sitting, ambulating, achieving an Aldrete score > or = 9, and achieving a post-anaesthetic discharge score > or = 9 were recorded. RESULTS: Systolic and diastolic arterial pressures at all measurements throughout the procedure were higher with ketamine-midazolam than with sevoflurane (P<0.05). Heart rates were comparable between groups, except after induction and after start of the procedure in which they were higher with ketamine-midazolam (P<0.05). All recovery endpoints were achieved earlier with sevoflurane than with ketamine-midazolam (P<0.05). Nausea-vomiting incidences were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane and ketamine-midazolam both provided effective anaesthesia for paediatric lithotripsy. The recovery and discharge times were shorter after anaesthesia with sevoflurane compared with ketamine-midazolam in children undergoing lithotripsy.

Propofol - not thiopental or etomidate - with remifentanil provides adequate intubating conditions in the absence of neuromuscular blockade.

PURPOSE: Administration of remifentanil followed by propofol provides adequate conditions for tracheal intubation without muscle relaxants. Other hypnotic drugs have not been thoroughly investigated in this regard. Intubating conditions with remifentanil followed by propofol, thiopentone or etomidate are compared in this study. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind study 45 healthy males were assigned to one of three groups (n = 15). After iv atropine, remifentanil 3 microg x kg(-1) were injected over 90 sec followed by propofol 2 mg x kg(-1) (Group I), thiopentone 6 mg x kg(-1) (Group II) or etomidate 0.3 mg x kg(-1) (Group III). Ninety seconds after the administration of the hypnotic agent, laryngoscopy and intubation were attempted. Intubating conditions were assessed as excellent, good or poor on the basis of ease of ventilation, jaw relaxation, position of the vocal cords, and patient response to intubation and slow inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff. RESULTS: One patient in Group I, three patients in Group II and five patients in Group III could not be intubated on the first attempt. Clinically acceptable intubating conditions were observed in 93.3%, 66.7%, 40.0% of patients in Groups I, II and III, respectively. Overall conditions at intubation were significantly (P < 0.05) better, and the frequency of excellent conditions was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in the propofol group compared with the thiopentone and etomidate groups. No patient was treated for hypotension or bradycardia. CONCLUSION: Propofol 2 mg x kg(-1) was superior to thiopentone 6 mg x kg(-1) and etomidate 0.3 mg x kg(-1) for tracheal intubation when combined with remifentanil 3 microg x kg(-1) and no muscle relaxant.