Zehra KURDOĞLU, Uğur GÖKTAŞ, Yasemin IŞIK, Dilara SÖZEN, İsmail KATI

Comparison of propofol and ketofol in minor gynecologic interventions

Amaç: Günübirlik anestezi, hemodinamik stabiliteyi koruyacak ve anestezi derinliğini hızla sağlayacak bir anestezik ajan ile güvenli bir anestezi metodu gerektirir. Sorunsuz bir uyanma sağlamak için anestezik ilaçlar hızla metabolize olmalıdır ve metabolitleri vücutta birikmemelidir. Bu çalışma da; probe küretaj işlemi uygulanacak hastalarda, propofol ve ketofol anestezisinin sedoanaljezik etkisine, uyanma zamanına, postoperatif komplikasyonlara, Modifiye Aldrete Skalasına, Visüel Analog Skoruna, hasta ve cerrah memnuniyetine bakmayı amaçladık.Yöntemler: Çalışmaya 60 kadın hasta alındı. Grup p'ye indüksiyonda intravenöz 2 mg/kg propofol ve 1?g/kg fentanyl uygulandı. İdamede propofol 100 ?g/kg/dk ile devam edildi. Grup K'ya ise indüksiyonda intravenöz 600 µg/kg ketofol ve idamede 100µg/kg/dk ketofol verildi. Otonomik ve hemodinamik cevaplara göre Grup P'ye 50 µg fentanyl, Grup K'ya ise 25µg/kg/dk ketofol ek doz yapıldı. Bulgular: Her iki grupta demografik veriler benzerdi. Grup P'de indüksiyondan sonra hemodinamik parametrelerde belirgin bir düşme görüldü. Grup K'da indüksiyondan sonra hemodinamik parametrelerde herhangi bir değişiklik gözlemlenmedi. Grup P'de ek analjezik gereksinimi %66,6 idi. Grup K'da 2 hastada bulantı ve 2 hastada halüsinasyonlar görüldü. Hasta ve cerrah memnuniyeti her iki grupta tamdı. Sonuç: Bizim bulgularımıza göre küçük cerrahi girişim olan uterin küretaj da Ketofol anestezisi iyi bir seçenektir. Hasta da rahat ve hızlı bir uyanma sağlar, ayrıca minör cerrahi girişimlerde analjezi gereksinimini azaltarak postoperatif komplikasyonları da azaltır

Küçük jinekolojik girişimlerde propofol ve ketofol anestezisinin karşılaştırılması

Objective: Outpatient anesthesia requires a safe anesthetic method and an anesthetic agent that provides a rapid anesthesia depth and hemodynamic stability. To provide an uneventfully recovery, the anesthetic must also be rapidly metabolized, and its metabolites should not accumulate in the body. This study compared sedoanalgesia effects, recovery times, postoperative complications, Modified Aldrete Scale, Visual Analog Scores, and patient and surgeon satisfaction between propofol and ketofol, administered as anesthetics during the probe curettage procedure.Methods: A total of 60 female patients included in the study. Group P was administered 2 mg/kg of propofol and a 1 ?g/kg intravenous bolus of fentanyl for induction and 100 ?g/kg/min of propofol for maintenance. Group K was administered a 600 µg/kg IV bolus of ketofol for induction and 100 µg/kg/min of ketofol for maintenance. Additional fentanyl (50 µg) was administered to Group P, and 25 µg/kg/min of ketofol was administered to Group K according to autonomic and hemodynamic responses. Results: Demographic data of the 2 groups were similar. A significant decrease in hemodynamic values was detected in patients in Group P after induction. No change in these values was detected during or after induction in Group K. The additional analgesia requirement was 66.6% in Group P. Nausea was detected in 2 patients in Group K. Additionally, hallucination was detected in 2 patients in Group K. Patient and surgeon satisfaction were complete in both groups.Conclusion: According to our findings, ketofol anesthesia may be a good option in uterine curettage, patients recover quickly and comfortably, and ketofol both provides sufficient analgesia for the minor surgical intervention and reduces complications.

PDF

___

Reves JG, Glass PSA, Lubersky DA. Nonbarbiturate Intravenous Anesthetics. In: Miller RD., (ed) Anesthesia. USA: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. p. 249-256.
Haas DA, Harper DG. Ketamine: a review of its pharmacologic properties and use in ambulatory anesthesia. Anesth Prog 1992;39:61-68.
Messenger WD, Murray EH, Dungey PE, et al. Subdissociative-dose ketamine versus fentanyl for analgesia during propofol procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:877-886.
Uğur B, Sen S, Oğurlu M, et al. Comparison of remifentanil-propofol and fentanyl-propofol combination for probe curettage. Turkiye Klinikleri J Gynecol Obst 2007;1:30-36.
Buppasiri P, Tangmanowutikul S, Yoosuk W. Randomized controlled trial of mefenamic acid vs paracervical block for relief of pain for outpatient uterine curettage. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88:881-885.
Eker H, Cok OY, Ergenoglu P, et al. IV paracetamol effect on propofol-ketamine consumption in paediatric patients undergoing ESWL. J Anesth 2012;26:351- 356.
Green SM, Rothrock SG, Lynch EL, et al. Intramuscular Ketamine for Pediatric Sedation in the Emergency Department: Safety Profile in 1,022 Cases. Annals Emerg Med 1998;31:688-697.
Rossi MG, Candiotti KA. New modalities and paradigms for sedation: "new sedation agents". Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2009;11:171-176.
Tosun Z, Yesmaoglu A, Coruh A. Propofol-ketamine vs propofol-fentanyl combinations for deep sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing burn dressing changes. Pediatr Anaesth 2008;18:43-47.
Iskender A, Erbaş M, Karagöz I. The comparison of tecniques of different sedo-analgesia in the outpatient gynaecologic operations. Med J Kocaeli 2012;3:5-10.
Badrinath S, Avramov MN, Shadrick M, et al. The use of a ketamine-propofol combination during monitored anesthesia care. Anesth Analg 2000;90:858-862.
Akin A, Esmaoglu A, Guler G, et al. Propofol and propofol-ketamine in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Pediatr Cardiol 2005;26:553-557.
Mortero RF, Clark LD, Tolan MM, et al. The effects of small-dose ketamine on propofol sedation: respiration, postoperative mood, perception, cognition, and pain. Anesth Analg 2001;92:1465-1469.
Nejati A, Shariat R, Ashraf H, Labaf A. Ketamine / propofol versus midazolam / fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: A randomized, prospective, double-blind trial. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18:800-806.