Linked Life Data

1906248

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/1906248

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
1991-8-15
pubmed:abstractText
To attempt to justify the expense of using propofol for day-surgery, we have compared propofol with methohexitone for induction of anaesthesia for elective minor gynaecological procedures. Seventy healthy patients were randomised to receive either induction agent and postoperatively they were compared for recovery times, side-effects and patient appraisal the following day. The results showed that propofol was superior to methohexitone for most parameters, with small but statistically significant differences in response time, ambulation time, vomiting and drowsiness during recovery. There were minor differences in patient appraisal the next day. However, it is doubtful whether the advantages of propofol are sufficiently substantial to justify the expense of its routine use in preference to methohexitone and its place is a matter for individual judgement.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
May
pubmed:issn
0310-057X
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
19
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
201-4
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1991
pubmed:articleTitle
Is propofol cost-effective for day-surgery patients?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial