Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1166    
    Printed47    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded279    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

A comparison of halothane and sevoflurane for bronchoscopic removal of foreign bodies in children.


Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and Paediatric Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Yatindra K Batra
Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and Paediatric Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 17827546

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Year : 2004  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 137-43

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for

  Article in PDF (173 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
The present study was designed to compare induction and recovery characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane for rigid bronchoscopy for removal of foreign bodies in tracheobronchial tree in children. Forty four children (age 1-4 years) were allocated randomly to two groups to receive either halothane (group H; n=22) or sevoflurane (group S; n=22) in oxygen. A graded inhalation technique was used with maximum inspiratory concentration of 5% for halothane and 8% for sevoflurane. Time for loss of consciousness and induction time in group H and group S were 2.3+/-0.4 min vs 2.2+/-0.4 min (p>0.05) and 4.6+/-0.7 min vs 4.9+/-0.6 min (p>0.05) respectively. Intubation conditions with rigid bronchoscope were similar in both groups. Fewer children in group H had vocal cord movements as compared to group S on laryngoscopy (3 vs 8, p>0.05). Six children in group H and two children in group S had disturbances of cardiac rhythm (p>0.05). Emergence time was significantly shorter in group S as compared to group H (group H - 29.6+/-10.7 min vs group S- 12.3+/-7.6 min, p<0.05). Modified Aldrete's score of 8 was achieved significantly faster in group S as compared to group H (group H - 33.8+/-9.3 min vs group S- 17.3+/-6.8 min, p<0.05). Adverse events during induction and recovery were comparable between the two groups except for significantly high incidence of excitement in group S. In conclusion, halothane is as suitable as sevoflurane for children undergoing rigid bronchoscopy for airway foreign body retrieval, but sevoflurane has a quicker recovery.






[PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
 




Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and Paediatric Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Yatindra K Batra
Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and Paediatric Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 17827546

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

The present study was designed to compare induction and recovery characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane for rigid bronchoscopy for removal of foreign bodies in tracheobronchial tree in children. Forty four children (age 1-4 years) were allocated randomly to two groups to receive either halothane (group H; n=22) or sevoflurane (group S; n=22) in oxygen. A graded inhalation technique was used with maximum inspiratory concentration of 5% for halothane and 8% for sevoflurane. Time for loss of consciousness and induction time in group H and group S were 2.3+/-0.4 min vs 2.2+/-0.4 min (p>0.05) and 4.6+/-0.7 min vs 4.9+/-0.6 min (p>0.05) respectively. Intubation conditions with rigid bronchoscope were similar in both groups. Fewer children in group H had vocal cord movements as compared to group S on laryngoscopy (3 vs 8, p>0.05). Six children in group H and two children in group S had disturbances of cardiac rhythm (p>0.05). Emergence time was significantly shorter in group S as compared to group H (group H - 29.6+/-10.7 min vs group S- 12.3+/-7.6 min, p<0.05). Modified Aldrete's score of 8 was achieved significantly faster in group S as compared to group H (group H - 33.8+/-9.3 min vs group S- 17.3+/-6.8 min, p<0.05). Adverse events during induction and recovery were comparable between the two groups except for significantly high incidence of excitement in group S. In conclusion, halothane is as suitable as sevoflurane for children undergoing rigid bronchoscopy for airway foreign body retrieval, but sevoflurane has a quicker recovery.






[PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article