Faster recovery after anesthesia in infants after intravenous induction with methohexital instead of thiopental

19Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: To determine possible delays in recovery after intravenous anesthesia induction with thiopental, the drug was compared with methohexital in infants 1-12 months of age who were scheduled for hernia repair or circumcision. Methods: The infants were given equipotent doses of methohexital (3.0 mg/kg, n = 21) or thiopental (7.3 mg/kg, n = 20), in random and blind fashion. After tracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in nitrous oxide/oxygen. All children received 0.75 ml/kg caudal bupivacaine (2.5 mg/ml). Isoflurane was discontinued at the beginning of skin closure, and nitrous oxide was terminated immediately after the last suture (end of surgery). Results: There were no differences between the two groups with respect to age, weight, or duration of surgery, which lasted 19 min (14- 23 min) in the methohexital group and 16 min (15-19 min) in the thiopental group (median and inner quartile range). Time from termination of nitrous oxide to extubation did not differ significantly between the groups. Time to spontaneous eye opening after end of surgery was 23 min (5-44 min) after methohexital induction and 55 min (2574 min) after thiopental induction (P < 0.05). Recovery, assessed as postanesthetic recovery scores by a blinded observer, was significantly more rapid in the methohexital group at arrival in the recovery room and 5, 15, and 45 min after arrival. After 120 min, almost all infants of both groups were awake. Conclusions: Recovery after short surgical procedures in infants is faster after intravenous induction with methohexital than with thiopental.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Beskow, A., Werner, O., & Westrin, P. (1995). Faster recovery after anesthesia in infants after intravenous induction with methohexital instead of thiopental. Anesthesiology, 83(5), 976–979. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199511000-00010

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