Comparison of sevoflurane laryngeal mask inhalation anesthesia and propofol intravenous anesthesia in indirect inguinal hernia surgery in children

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2020.05.015

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the effects of sevoflurane laryngeal mask inhalation anesthesia and propofol intravenous anesthesia in indirect inguinal hernia surgery in children.

Methods

One hundred children with indirect inguinal hernia admitted to General hospital of Easter War Zone Objective from January 2017 to January 2018 were divided into control group (n=50) and observation group (n=50) according to different anesthesia schemes. The control group was given propofol intravenous anesthesia, while the observation group was given sevoflurane laryngeal mask inhalation anesthesia. The effects of anesthesia and the changes of MAP, HR and SpO₂ at different time points were compared between the two groups. The adverse reactions after extubation were compared.

Results

The disappearance time of consciousness in the observation group was shorter than that in the control group (P<0.05). At T1 to T3, there were differences in MAP and HR between the two groups (P<0.05), and at T2 and T3, the MAP and HR in the control group were higher than those in the observation group. There was no difference in SpO₂ between the two groups in T1 to T3 (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group and the control group were 4.00% and 16.00%, respectively, and the incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Sevoflurane laryngeal mask inhalation anesthesia in indirect inguinal hernia surgery can make the vital signs of children stable, less adverse reactions after operation, and the anesthetic effect is better than propofol intravenous anesthesia. It is worthy of clinical application.

Key words: Indirect inguinal hernia, Sevoflurane, Propofol, Anesthesia

Qin Wang, Qingyong Meng, Xiangru Ji. Comparison of sevoflurane laryngeal mask inhalation anesthesia and propofol intravenous anesthesia in indirect inguinal hernia surgery in children[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(05): 523-526.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2020.05.015

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2020/V14/I05/523

Figures/Tables 3

References 17

[1]	杨玉莲，张家栩，谭燕, 等. 腹腔镜下小儿斜疝疝囊高位结扎术后复发危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(5): 437-439.
[2]	Woll KA, Peng W, Liang Q, et al. Photoaffinity ligand for the inhalational anesthetic sevoflurane allows mechanistic insight into potassium channel modulation[J]. Acs Chemical Biology, 2017, 12(5): 1353-1356.
[3]	庄灿锋，汪志勇，方进龙. 不同麻醉方法对小儿腹腔镜疝修补术后免疫功能的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 306-310.
[4]	马龙，迟晓慧，卫晓娜, 等. 七氟醚吸入复合米库氯铵、芬太尼诱导加喉罩正压通气在小儿麻醉中的应用效果[J]. 河北医药, 2018, 40(22): 114-116.
[5]	魏灵欣，邓晓明，王磊, 等. 右美托咪定降低小儿Ambu AuraOnce喉罩置入所需七氟醚呼气末半数有效浓度[J]. 国际麻醉学与复苏杂志, 2017, 38(6): 519-523.
[6]	张竞泾，卞谦，张晓颖, 等. 临床综合条件下七氟醚抑制小儿喉罩拔除反应的半数有效浓度[J]. 中华麻醉学杂志, 2018, 38(1): 59-61.
[7]	李洁，曲海霞，董非. 髂腹下-髂腹股沟神经阻滞在小儿疝气鞘膜积液手术中的应用效果观察[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2018, 18(2): 254-256.
[8]	王建设，费建，赵龙德. 芬太尼与舒芬太尼在小儿日间手术腹股沟斜疝麻醉中的效果比较[J]. 中国现代医学杂志, 2017, 27(5): 78-81.
[9]	高洁，毕翻利，党璐, 等. 七氟醚联合骶管阻滞麻醉对小儿疝气手术的麻醉效果分析[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2017, 17(10): 1934-1937.
[10]	Li L, Saiyin H, Xie J, et al. Sevoflurane preconditioning induced endogenous neurogenesis against ischemic brain injury by promoting microglial activation[J]. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(17): 28544-28557.
[11]	史宇平，史宇平，田园, 等. 丙泊酚与七氟醚麻醉对小儿腹腔镜疝囊高位结扎术血流动力学及并发症的影响[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2017, 14(12): 1709-1711.
[12]	汤荣兴，李智铭，余岚, 等. 瑞芬太尼无肌松快通道麻醉在小儿腹腔镜疝囊高位结扎术中的应用[J]. 四川医学, 2018, 39(9): 79-83.
[13]	符定家，许铿，李建, 等. 静-吸复合麻醉加局部神经阻滞在小儿疝气手术中的应用研究[J]. 中国地方病防治杂志, 2017, 32(11): 1270-1270.
[14]	Liu J, Zhao Y, Yang J, et al. Neonatal repeated exposure to isoflurane not sevoflurane in mice reversibly impaired spatial cognition at juvenile-age[J]. Neurochem Res, 2017, 42(2): 595-562.
[15]	白建云，贺峰，郭增林, 等. SLIPATM喉罩与气管插管在小儿腹腔镜疝修补术中的比较[J]. 国际麻醉学与复苏杂志, 2017, 38(12): 1102-1105.
[16]	涂远艳，汪志勇，方进龙. 两种通气模式对小儿腹腔镜下Proseal喉罩通气功能的影响[J]. 中国医药导报, 2017, 14(4): 54-57.
[17]	Nakagawa T, Hashimoto M, Hashimoto Y, et al. The effects of tramadol on postoperative shivering after sevoflurane and remifentanil anesthesia[J]. BMC Anesthesiol, 2017, 17(1): 1-5.

组别	例数	意识消失时间	诱导至插管时间	苏醒时间	拔喉罩时间	离开麻醉恢复室时间
对照组	50	5.31±1.33	10.76±4.14	10.46±3.48	15.89±2.56	21.47±5.46
观察组	50	1.79±0.67	2.79±1.76	5.75±1.85	5.48±1.10	10.48±2.83
t值		16.713	12.528	8.450	26.418	12.636
P值		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	意识消失时间	诱导至插管时间	苏醒时间	拔喉罩时间	离开麻醉恢复室时间
对照组	50	5.31±1.33	10.76±4.14	10.46±3.48	15.89±2.56	21.47±5.46
观察组	50	1.79±0.67	2.79±1.76	5.75±1.85	5.48±1.10	10.48±2.83
t值		16.713	12.528	8.450	26.418	12.636
P值		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	时间	MAP(mmHg)	HR(次/min)	SpO₂(%)
对照组	50	T1	76.16±3.78	112.34±6.71	97.23±2.74
		T2	90.74±5.85^a	130.31±7.30^a	96.47±3.05
		T3	82.78±8.45^a	128.75±6.74^a	97.21±2.37
		F值	47.999	74.464	0.903
		P值	<0.001	<0.001	0.408
观察组	50	T1	76.78±3.45	113.72±5.32	97.12±2.65
		T2	81.70±4.72^ab	115.45±6.71^b	96.75±3.15
		T3	78.23±2.83^b	114.52±5.46^b	97.31±2.63
		F值	18.080	0.785	0.367
		P值	<0.001	0.459	0.694

组别	例数	时间	MAP(mmHg)	HR(次/min)	SpO₂(%)
对照组	50	T1	76.16±3.78	112.34±6.71	97.23±2.74
		T2	90.74±5.85^a	130.31±7.30^a	96.47±3.05
		T3	82.78±8.45^a	128.75±6.74^a	97.21±2.37
		F值	47.999	74.464	0.903
		P值	<0.001	<0.001	0.408
观察组	50	T1	76.78±3.45	113.72±5.32	97.12±2.65
		T2	81.70±4.72^ab	115.45±6.71^b	96.75±3.15
		T3	78.23±2.83^b	114.52±5.46^b	97.31±2.63
		F值	18.080	0.785	0.367
		P值	<0.001	0.459	0.694

组别	例数	反流误吸(例)	喉痉挛(例)	低氧血症(例)	恶心呕吐(例)	总发生率
对照组	50	3	2	1	2	8(16.00)
观察组	50	1	0	0	1	2(4.00)
χ²值						4.000
P值						0.046

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export