PURPOSE: Studies comparing the recovery profiles of isoflurane- and propofol-based anesthesia for major intracranial surgery have reported contradictory results. The aim of our study was to clarify the emergence status in both regimens by investigating uniformly managed neuroanesthesia cases. METHODS: The anesthesia database at Yamagata University Hospital covering the period 2002-2005 was retrospectively investigated for adult patients who underwent craniotomy for primary brain tumor excision. General anesthesia was provided by an isoflurane- (ISO group) or propofol-based (PROP group) regimen. Times to extubation and operating room (OR) discharge, perioperative consciousness levels, and perioperative variables were compared. RESULTS: Of the 202 surgeries performed during the study period, 77 and 82 patients were anesthetized with isoflurane and propofol, respectively. Demographic data were comparable between the two groups, although the American Society of Anesthesiology grade was worse in the PROP group. Extubation times [39.5 ± 14.6 min (ISO) vs. 29.5 ± 14.9 min (PROP); P < 0.001] and OR discharge times [67.2 ± 18.0 (ISO) vs. 53.9 ± 17.6 min (PROP); P < 0.001] were significantly shorter in the PROP, with significantly better immediate consciousness levels. The differences in levels of consciousness persisted for several hours postoperatively. PROP patients had significantly higher urine outputs and lower body temperatures during anesthesia. The incidences of shivering, nausea, vomiting, and convulsions were not significantly different between the groups. The time to discharge was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol was associated with a better recovery profile and neurological condition than isoflurane, as indicated by shorter extubation and OR discharge times and better postoperative consciousness.
PURPOSE: Studies comparing the recovery profiles of isoflurane- and propofol-based anesthesia for major intracranial surgery have reported contradictory results. The aim of our study was to clarify the emergence status in both regimens by investigating uniformly managed neuroanesthesia cases. METHODS: The anesthesia database at Yamagata University Hospital covering the period 2002-2005 was retrospectively investigated for adult patients who underwent craniotomy for primary brain tumor excision. General anesthesia was provided by an isoflurane- (ISO group) or propofol-based (PROP group) regimen. Times to extubation and operating room (OR) discharge, perioperative consciousness levels, and perioperative variables were compared. RESULTS: Of the 202 surgeries performed during the study period, 77 and 82 patients were anesthetized with isoflurane and propofol, respectively. Demographic data were comparable between the two groups, although the American Society of Anesthesiology grade was worse in the PROP group. Extubation times [39.5 ± 14.6 min (ISO) vs. 29.5 ± 14.9 min (PROP); P < 0.001] and OR discharge times [67.2 ± 18.0 (ISO) vs. 53.9 ± 17.6 min (PROP); P < 0.001] were significantly shorter in the PROP, with significantly better immediate consciousness levels. The differences in levels of consciousness persisted for several hours postoperatively. PROPpatients had significantly higher urine outputs and lower body temperatures during anesthesia. The incidences of shivering, nausea, vomiting, and convulsions were not significantly different between the groups. The time to discharge was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:Propofol was associated with a better recovery profile and neurological condition than isoflurane, as indicated by shorter extubation and OR discharge times and better postoperative consciousness.
Authors: J Guy; B J Hindman; K Z Baker; C O Borel; M Maktabi; N Ostapkovich; J Kirchner; M M Todd; P Fogarty-Mack; V Yancy; M D Sokoll; A McAllister; C Roland; W L Young; D S Warner Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Pekka Talke; James E Caldwell; Ronald Brown; Barbara Dodson; Joan Howley; Charles A Richardson Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: M M Todd; D S Warner; M D Sokoll; M A Maktabi; B J Hindman; F L Scamman; J Kirschner Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 1993-06 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Regin Jay Mallari; Michael B Avery; Alex Corlin; Amalia Eisenberg; Terese C Hammond; Neil A Martin; Garni Barkhoudarian; Daniel F Kelly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240