4.4 Article

The effects of volatile anesthetics on intraoperative monitoring of myogenic motor-evoked potentials to pranscranial electrical stimulation and on partial neuromuscular blockade during propofol/fentanyl/nitrous oxide anesthesia in humans

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 106-111

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00008506-200604000-00003

关键词

motor-evoked potentials; volatile anesthetics; neuromuscular blockade; muscle relaxant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to compare the influence of volatile anesthetics on transcranial motor-evoked potentials (tcMEP) in humans anesthetized with propofol/fentanyl/nitrous oxide and on partial neuromuscular blockade (NMB). The authors studied 35 ASA I and II patients who were undergoing elective craniotomy and brain tumor resection. The patients were randomized to one of three groups to receive halothane (HAL), isoflurane (ISO), or sevoflurane (SEV). Anesthetic depth was initially adjusted using the bispectral index to 40 +/- 5, and NMB was adjusted to 40%-50% of one twitch of train of four (T1) after recovery from intubation. MEPs with train of five square-wave pulses were elicited using screw electrodes placed in the skull over C3-C4. After craniotomy, the inhalational agent was introduced at 0.5 MAC and then 1.0 MAC (20 minutes each), and the effects on MEPs, NMB, and hemodynamic variables were studied. A decrease in BIS and systolic blood pressure was observed with all agents. Both SEV and ISO at 1.0 MAC significantly decreased train-of-four ratio from 38.4 +/- 18.1 at control to 19.0 +/- 9.7 and from 35.3 +/- 12.4 to 26.1 +/- 13.7, respectively (P<0.001), but not HAL at 1.0 MAC. The amplitudes of tcMEPs were significantly reduced by all agents at 1.0 MAC with the effect being less in HAL at 0.5 MAC. We have shown that HAL had a lesser suppressive effect on MEPs than either ISO or SEV at 0.5 MAC, which was partially due to a lesser degree of NMB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据