File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison between sevoflurane/remifentanil and propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia in providing conditions for somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis corrective surgery

TitleComparison between sevoflurane/remifentanil and propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia in providing conditions for somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis corrective surgery
Authors
KeywordsAnaesthetic
Intravenous
Monitoring
Propofol
Remifentanil
Sevoflurane
Somatosensory evoked potential
Spinal
Volatile
Issue Date2008
PublisherAustralian Society of Anaesthetists. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.aaic.net.au
Citation
Anaesthesia And Intensive Care, 2008, v. 36 n. 6, p. 779-785 How to Cite?
AbstractSomatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring is an important tool in spinal corrective surgery. Anaesthesia has a significant influence on SSEP monitoring and a technique which has the least and shortest suppressant effect on SSEP while facilitating a fast recovery from anaesthesia is ideal. We compared the effect of sevoflurane/remifentanil and propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia on SSEPs during scoliosis corrective surgery and assessed patients' clinical recovery profiles. Twenty patients with idiopathic scoliosis receiving surgical correction with intraoperative SSEP monitoring were prospectively randomised to receive sevoflurane/remifentanil anaesthesia or propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia. During surgery, changes in anaesthesia dose and physiological variables were recorded, while SSEP was continuously monitored. A simulated 'wake-up' test was performed postoperatively to assess speed and quality of recovery from anaesthesia. The effects of propofol and sevoflurane resulted in SSEP amplitude variability between 18.0%±3.5% to 28.7%±5.9% and SSEP latency variability within 1.3%±0.4% to 2.6%±1.2%. Patients receiving sevoflurane had faster suppression and faster recovery of SSEP amplitude compared to propofol (P <0.05), although propofol anaesthesia showed less within-patient variability in Cz amplitude and latency (P <0.05). On cessation of anaesthesia, time to eye-opening (5.2 vs. 16.5 minutes) and toe movement (5.4 vs. 17.4 minutes) was shorter following sevoflurane (all P <0.05). These findings indicate that propofol produces a better SSEP signal than sevoflurane. However, adjustments in sevoflurane concentration result in faster changes in the SSEP signal than propofol. Assessment of neurological function was facilitated more rapidly after sevoflurane anaesthesia.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/58177
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.283
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.488
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFung, NYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHu, Yen_HK
dc.contributor.authorIrwin, MGen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChow, BFMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYuen, MYen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-05-31T03:25:11Z-
dc.date.available2010-05-31T03:25:11Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_HK
dc.identifier.citationAnaesthesia And Intensive Care, 2008, v. 36 n. 6, p. 779-785en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0310-057Xen_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/58177-
dc.description.abstractSomatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring is an important tool in spinal corrective surgery. Anaesthesia has a significant influence on SSEP monitoring and a technique which has the least and shortest suppressant effect on SSEP while facilitating a fast recovery from anaesthesia is ideal. We compared the effect of sevoflurane/remifentanil and propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia on SSEPs during scoliosis corrective surgery and assessed patients' clinical recovery profiles. Twenty patients with idiopathic scoliosis receiving surgical correction with intraoperative SSEP monitoring were prospectively randomised to receive sevoflurane/remifentanil anaesthesia or propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia. During surgery, changes in anaesthesia dose and physiological variables were recorded, while SSEP was continuously monitored. A simulated 'wake-up' test was performed postoperatively to assess speed and quality of recovery from anaesthesia. The effects of propofol and sevoflurane resulted in SSEP amplitude variability between 18.0%±3.5% to 28.7%±5.9% and SSEP latency variability within 1.3%±0.4% to 2.6%±1.2%. Patients receiving sevoflurane had faster suppression and faster recovery of SSEP amplitude compared to propofol (P <0.05), although propofol anaesthesia showed less within-patient variability in Cz amplitude and latency (P <0.05). On cessation of anaesthesia, time to eye-opening (5.2 vs. 16.5 minutes) and toe movement (5.4 vs. 17.4 minutes) was shorter following sevoflurane (all P <0.05). These findings indicate that propofol produces a better SSEP signal than sevoflurane. However, adjustments in sevoflurane concentration result in faster changes in the SSEP signal than propofol. Assessment of neurological function was facilitated more rapidly after sevoflurane anaesthesia.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherAustralian Society of Anaesthetists. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.aaic.net.auen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofAnaesthesia and Intensive Careen_HK
dc.subjectAnaestheticen_HK
dc.subjectIntravenousen_HK
dc.subjectMonitoringen_HK
dc.subjectPropofolen_HK
dc.subjectRemifentanilen_HK
dc.subjectSevofluraneen_HK
dc.subjectSomatosensory evoked potentialen_HK
dc.subjectSpinalen_HK
dc.subjectVolatileen_HK
dc.titleComparison between sevoflurane/remifentanil and propofol/remifentanil anaesthesia in providing conditions for somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis corrective surgeryen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=6&volume=36&spage=779&epage=85.&date=2008&atitle=Comparison+between+sevoflurane/remifentanil+and+propofol/remifentanil+anaesthesia+in+providing+conditions+for+somatosensory+evoked+potential+monitoring+during+scoliosis+corrective+surgery.+en_HK
dc.identifier.emailHu, Y:yhud@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailIrwin, MG:mgirwin@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHu, Y=rp00432en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityIrwin, MG=rp00390en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.pmid19115644-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-56649109628en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros159710en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros160834-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-56649109628&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume36en_HK
dc.identifier.issue6en_HK
dc.identifier.spage779en_HK
dc.identifier.epage785en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1448-0271-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000261964000004-
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFung, NY=36339436300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHu, Y=7407116091en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridIrwin, MG=7202411076en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChow, BFM=36338944000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYuen, MY=36342147800en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats