Effects of propofol and sevoflurane on the excitability of rat spinal motoneurones and nociceptive reflexes in vitro

57Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. Spinal actions of halogenated ethers are widely recognized, whereas spinal actions of intravenous anaesthetics like propofol are less clear. The aim of this study was to compare the spinal effects of propofol and sevoflurane. Methods. We used an isolated spinal cord in vitro preparation from rat pups and superfused the anaesthetics at known concentrations. Responses of motoneurones to single and repetitive C-fibre intensity stimulation (trains of 20 stimuli at 1 Hz) of a lumbar dorsal root were recorded from the corresponding ventral root via a suction electrode. Results. Stimulation trains produced a wind-up of action potentials in motoneurones. Both propofol and sevoflurane produced a significant concentration-dependent depression of the evoked wind-up, although at clinically relevant concentrations sevoflurane exhibited a larger intrinsic efficacy. Applied at anaesthetic concentrations, sevoflurane 250 μM abolished action potentials whereas propofol 1 μM only produced a reduction close to 50%. At these concentrations, sevoflurane produced a large depressant effect on the monosynaptic reflex whereas propofol was ineffective. Conclusions. Sevoflurane produces large inhibitory effects on nociceptive and non-nociceptive reflexes which are likely to contribute to immobility during surgery. Compared with sevoflurane, propofol appears to have much weaker effects on spinal reflexes such as those recorded in an isolated preparation. © The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2004.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Matute, E., Rivera-Arconada, I., & López-García, J. A. (2004). Effects of propofol and sevoflurane on the excitability of rat spinal motoneurones and nociceptive reflexes in vitro. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 93(3), 422–427. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeh217

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free