DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20191338

Comparative evaluation of induction with propofol vs induction with sevoflurane for insertion of laryngeal mask airway in children

Sandhya A. Bakshi, Sanjay S. Bule, Ganesh U. Shingade

Abstract


Background: There is increasing use of laryngeal mask airway in children because of ease of insertion and minimal disturbances in cardio respiratory system and lesser risk of airway injury during perioperative period as compared to endotracheal tube. It is also simple, well-tolerated, safe, reusable, cost effective method of airway management in paediatric patients. Intravenous propofol (1%) is a preferred induction agent for LMA insertion till date, while sevoflurane, a halogenated volatile inhalational, non-irritating anaesthetist agent with pleasant odour is also suitable for inhalational induction of children. This study was carried out to study and compare clinical efficacy of propofol and sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion in children undergoing short surgical procedures.

Methods: In this study, total 100 children of ASA grade I/II of either sex with age group 3-8 years, weighing between 10-20 kg were enrolled. They were induced with either sevoflurane (group S) or intravenous propofol (group P) 3 mg/kg. Then appropriate size LMA was inserted. Various parameters like jaw relaxation and ease of insertion attempts required hemodynamic changes were noted and compared in two groups.

Results: In group P, 94% patients and groups S, 90% patients had full jaw relaxation. The LMA insertion was easy in 98% patients in groups P and 94% patients in groups S. In 98% patients of groups P and 96% patients in groups S, LMA was inserted successfully in first attempt. The mean time required for LMA insertion was 19.16±5.29 seconds in groups P and 20.8±6.39 seconds in groups S. Both the groups were comparable with respect to haemodynamic changes observed which were transient and clinically not significant though statically significant.

Conclusions: Both the groups showed comparable and satisfactory LMA insertion conditions, hence both can be routinely used for induction of anaesthesia in children.

Keywords


Airway management, Inhalational anaesthesia, Laryngeal mask airway, Propofol, Paediatric, Sevoflurane

Full Text:

PDF

References


Goudsouzian NG, Denman W, Cleveland R, Shorten G. Radiologic localization of the laryngeal mask airway in children. Anesthesiol. 1992;77(6):1085-9.

Watcha MF, White PF, Tychsen L, Stevens JL. Comparative effects of LMA and ET insertion on intraocular pressure in children. Anesth Analg. 1992;75:255-60.

Power M, Kohli M, Usha C, Gupta R. A comparative study of the effects of placement of LMA vs ETT on haemodynamic parameters and IOP in children. Ind J Anaesth. 2001;45:123-7.

Lerman J. Sevoflurane in pediatric anesthesia. Anesth Analgesia. 1995;81(6S):4S-10S.

Fredman B, Nathanson MH, Smith I, Wang J, Klein K, White P. Sevoflurane for outpatient anesthesia: a comparison with propofol. Anesth Analgesia. 1995;81(4):823-8.

Lerman J, Sikich N, Kleinman S, Yentis S. The pharmacology of sevoflurane in infants and children. Anesthesiol. 1994;80(4):814-24.

Black A, Sury MR, Hemington L, Howard R, Mackersie A, Hatch DJ. A comparison of the induction characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane in children. Anaesth. 1996;51(6):539-42.

Sigston PE, Jenkins AM, Jackson EA, Sury MR, Mackersie AM, Hatch DJ. Rapid inhalation induction in children: 8% sevoflurane compared with 5% halothane. Brit J Anaesth. 1997;78(4):362-5.

Stevens WC, Kingston HGG. lnhalational anaesthesia, In: Barash PG, Cullen BF, Stoelting RK (Eds.). Clinical Anesthesia, 2nd ed., Philadelphia: J.B. Lippineott Co., 1992:441.

Ganatra SB, D'Mello J, Butani M, Jhamnani P. Conditions for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway: Comparisons between sevoflurane and propofol using fentanyl as a co-induction agent. A pilot study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002;19:371-5.

Vora K, Shah V, Patel D, Modi M, Parikh G. Sevoflurane versus propofol in the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia in children with laryngeal mask airway. Sri Lanka J Child Heal. 2014;43(2).

Ravi S, Krishnamoorthy K, Ganesan I. Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in children. Ind J Clin Anaesth. 2015;2(3):137-40.

Paris ST, Cafferkey M, Tarling M, Hancock P, Yate PM, Flynn PJ. Comparison of sevoflurane and halothane for outpatient dental anaesthesia in children. Brit J Anaesth. 1997;79(3):280-4.

Dedhia KN, Kudalkar A. Comparison of Sevoflurane and Halothane for induction of anesthesia and laryngeal mask airway insertion in pediatric patients. Ind J Anaesth. 2004;48(6):465-8.

Bachnani B. Induction characteristics of sevoflurane vs isoflurane in paediatric patients. Ind J Anaesth. 2003;47(2);97-99.

Jamil A. A study of the use of LMA in children and its comparison with endotracheal intubation. Ind J Anaesth. 2009;53(2);174-178.

Seyedhejazi M, Eydi M, Ghojazadeh M, Nejati A, Ghabili K, Golzari SE, et al. Propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion in children: effect of two different doses. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013;7(3):266.

O'neill B, Templeton JJ, Caramico L, Schreiner MS. The laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients: factors affecting ease of use during insertion and emergence. Anesth Analgesia. 1994;78(4):659-62.

Priya V, Divatia JV, Dasgupta D. A comparison of propofol versus sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion. Ind J Anaesth. 2002;46(1):31-4.