ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 117-121

Conscious sedation for middle ear surgeries: A comparison between fentanyl-propofol and fentanyl-midazolam infusion


1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Anesthesia, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Raghu S Thota
MD (Anaesthesia), Fellowship in Pain Management (Singapore), PGCC (Pain Management) Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.152818

Rights and Permissions

Introduction and Aim: Middle ear surgeries can be performed under local anesthesia and sedation and can be well tolerated by the patient with minimal discomfort. This study was undertaken to compare two techniques of conscious sedation, intravenous midazolam, and propofol infusion for tympanoplasty. Materials and Methods: Forty patients scheduled for right or left tympanoplasty. American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II in age group 18-75 years were included in the study. The patients were randomly allocated into one of the two groups to receive either propofol (group I) or midazolam (group II). Results: The mean duration of anesthesia was 116.00 ± 33.94 min in group I, while 97.50 ± 30.76 min in group II (P = 0.07). The modified Ramsay sedation scale was not statistically significant in both the groups. In group I, 70% of the patients and 95% of the patients in group II had amnesia during the surgery (P = 0.091). The mean visual analog scale (VAS) score for surgeons and patients was not statistically significant in both the groups. In group I there was a positive correlation between the total dose of fentanyl and VAS score for surgeons (P = 0.02). There was also a positive correlation between the total dose of propofol and VAS score for surgeons (P = 0.034) and patients (P = 0.039) in group I. Conclusion: Though propofol had shown a faster recovery and less nausea vomiting, we need a larger sample size to conclude, which of the technique is better. Both the techniques are safe, simple and versatile and provide excellent sedation with rapid trouble free recovery.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3399    
    Printed69    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded319    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal