Categories

Volume 5 Issue 8 (August, 2017)

Original Articles

Desflurane and Sevoflurane for Recovery Profile and Airway Responses- A Comparative Study
Bhragu Nath Singh, Mradula Agarwal

Background: Multiple studies have demonstrated that desflurane allows for a more rapid emergence than sevoflurane, and this may be beneficial for outpatient surgery, where quick case turnover and reduced post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) time is essential to ensure a good workflow. Aim of the study: To compare Desflurane and Sevoflurane for recovery profile and airway responses. Materials and methods: The study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesia of the medical institute. The ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the ethical board of the institute prior to commencement of the study. For the study, we selected 60 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II scheduled for surgical procedures at General Surgery department. The patients were randomly grouped into two groups with 30 patients in each group, Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 patients received Sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia and Group 2 patients received Desflurane for the maintenance of anesthesia. Results: A total of 50 patients were included in the study. Mean age of patients in group 1 was 58.25 years and in group 2 was 59.45 years. Total recovery time in group 1 was 49.58 min and in group 2 was 30.12 min. Time duration to sit in bed with support was 45.31 min and 21.28 min. On comparison the results were observed as statistically significant. Conclusion:  Desflurane has an overall better quality of early recovery in patients as compared to sevoflurane.
Keywords: Desflurane, Sevoflurane, anesthesia.

Corresponding author: Dr. Mradula Agarwal, Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, Barabanki U P, India

This article may be cited as: Singh BN, Agarwal M. Desflurane and Sevoflurane for Recovery Profile and Airway Responses: A Comparative Study J Adv Med Dent Scie Res 2017;5(8):101-103.

 
Html View | Download PDF | Current Issue


 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.  
?>