Linked Life Data

8198908

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/8198908

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
5
pubmed:dateCreated
1994-7-5
pubmed:abstractText
We have compared the recovery profiles of 163 healthy Chinese children after general anaesthesia for minor surgical procedures. Patients were allocated randomly to receive one of four anaesthetic techniques: propofol infusion for induction and maintenance using a pharmacokinetic model-controlled syringe pump set initially at a target concentration of 8 micrograms ml-1 and then adjusted according to clinical requirements; propofol 2.5-3.5 mg kg-1, thiopentone 4-5 mg kg-1 or 2-3% halothane for induction of anaesthesia followed by 1-2% halothane for maintenance of anaesthesia. All patients breathed a mixture of 70% nitrous oxide in oxygen through a laryngeal mask airway and received an appropriate regional anaesthetic block. Recovery was assessed using the time to achieve full Steward score, open eyes on command, orientation and the time required to complete a simple puzzle. Recovery was slowest with the propofol infusion (mean 39.8 (SD 12.9) min when eyes opened on command). The recovery times were significantly shorter with the three other techniques (propofol bolus 21.9 (9.9) min, thiopentone 23.4 (11.3) min, halothane 20.1 (8.9) min), and the choice among these three methods had no significant influence on the recovery profile.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
May
pubmed:issn
0007-0912
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
72
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
554-8
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1994
pubmed:articleTitle
Recovery after propofol infusion anaesthesia in children: comparison with propofol, thiopentone or halothane induction followed by halothane maintenance.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial