RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Minimal-flow anesthesia provides various advantages, such as reduced environmental pollution, proper humidification and warming of anesthetic gases, and reduced costs. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of minimal-flow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia and their effects on hemodynamics, postoperative recovery, respiratory parameters, and liver and kidney functions. METHODS: A total of 60 ASA I-II patients aged 18-70 years who underwent posterior spinal instrumentation were included in the study. The patients were divided into Group S (sevoflurane) and Group D (desflurane). After anesthesia induction, the gas flow was initiated at a rate of 4 L.min-1 using a concentration of 8% in Group D and 3.5% in Group S, and the time to reach 0.8 MAC was recorded. The gas flow was then switched to minimal flow. Patient hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, body temperatures and arterial blood gas levels were recorded. The integrated pulmonary index (IPI) was monitored postoperatively. Biochemical findings were recorded 12 hours after the operation. The amount of bleeding and blood transfused, and the costs involved were calculated. RESULTS: The patients' demographic characteristics, duration of surgery, hemodynamic parameters, IPI values, body temperatures, and arterial blood gas levels were similar at all time points. Biochemical findings, amount of bleeding and amount of blood transfused were similar between the two groups. The mean cost was lower in Group S than in Group D (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The study found no significant difference in terms of reliability between minimal-flow sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia. Furthermore, the procedure was found to be more cost-effective for Group S than for Group D.

Assuntos

Anestésicos Inalatórios , Isoflurano , Éteres Metílicos , Anestesia Geral , Anestésicos Inalatórios/farmacologia , Desflurano , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Sevoflurano

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use of transversus abdominis plane block with different local anesthetics is considered as a part of multimodal analgesia regimen in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. However no studies have been published comparing bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for transversus abdominis plane block. We aimed to compare bupivacaine and levobupivacaine in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Fifty patients (ASA I/II), undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated into two groups. Following anesthesia induction, ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block was performed with 30mL of bupivacaine 0.25% in Group B (n=25) and 30mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% in Group L (n=25) for each side. The level of pain was evaluated using 10cm visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during coughing 1, 5, 15, 30min and 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24h after the operation. When visual analogue scale>3, the patients received IV tenoxicam 20mg. If visual analogue scale remained >3, they received IV. tramadol 1mg.kg-1. In case of inadequate analgesia, a rescue analgesic was given. The analgesic requirement, time to first analgesic requirement was recorded. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale levels showed no difference except first and fifth minutes postoperatively where VAS was higher in Group L (p<0.05). Analgesic requirement was similar in both groups. Time to first analgesic requirement was shorter in Group L (4.35±6.92min vs. 34.91±86.26min, p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine and levobupivacaine showed similar efficacy at TAP block in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.