English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is widely used in emergency medicine and surgical anesthesia. Several studies demonstrated induction of anesthesia with different plasma target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol for LMA insertion. However, there has been no study to compare the standard bolus propofol induction with the effective site TCI for LMA insertion. Objective: Compare the efficacy of induction of anesthesia with propofol for LMA insertion between the effective-site TCI, using 6 μg/mL, and the standard bolus propofol dose of 2.5 mg/kg in elective surgical patients. Methods: A randomized, prospective, single-blinded, clinical study was used for this study. Seventy-eight unpremedicated patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II undergoing elective surgical procedure were randomly allocated between two groups. Group 1 received the standard bolus propofol dose of 2.5 mg/kg. Group 2 received effective site TCI (Schnider model) dose of 6 μg/mL for LMA insertion. The hemodynamics and anesthetic depth (Bispectral index score) were monitored and recorded during and immediately after LMA insertion. The number of insertion attempted, insertion quality score, induction time, and propofol doses used were recorded and compared between groups. Results: The success rate of first insertion attempt was equal in both groups (92.3%). There was no significant hemodynamic response difference between the groups during pre-induction, induction, insertion, and post insertion period. The BIS score was significantly lower during post insertion period in group 1 (51.4+11.0) than group 2 (58.4+3.2) (p=0.013). The propofol doses in group 2 were significantly lower than in group 1 (110.6+14.8 vs. 153.5+21.5) (p <0.001). Patients in group 2 required significantly more induction time than group 1 (146.9+42.3 vs. 103.4+33.6 (p <0.001). Conclusion: Propofol induction with TCI provided equal success rate as compared with standard bolus propofol induction for LMA insertion and insertion quality score. TCI significantly lowered the propofol consumption when compared with the standard 2.5 mg/kg propofol dose.

Comparative study of effective-site target controlled infusion with standard bolus induction of propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion