Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
13 (
2
); 169-170
doi:
10.1055/s-0042-1744121

Commentary on “Comparison of Recovery Profiles of Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy under Desflurane, Propofol, or Sevoflurane Anesthesia. A Randomized, Prospective, Clinical, Comparative Study”

Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Address for correspondence Sohan Lal Solanki, MD Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Centre Dr E Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai 400012, Maharashtra India me_sohans@yahoo.co.in
Licence
This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Cognitive changes and psychomotor recovery affecting patients, following anesthesia and surgery, have been recognized for more than 100 years. Various studies have been conducted pertaining to this, demonstrating conflicting results with few showing propofol having better profile, while few skewing in for inhalational being better for postoperative psychomotor recovery.1 Surprisingly, no study till date has compared the effect of propofol, sevoflurane, and desflurane agents on recovery of cognitive and psychomotor functions simultaneously after daycare surgeries. In this study “Comparison of recovery profiles of patients undergoing endoscopic lumbar discectomy under desflurane, propofol or sevoflurane anesthesia. A randomized, prospective, clinical, comparative study,”2 the authors documented that the patients in the three groups had similar psychomotor and cognitive functional impairments with comparable recovery time periods postoperatively. They also noted that the emergence and early recovery were faster in the desflurane group.

This is a single-center prospective randomized trial wherein 75 patients were analyzed out of 79 being enrolled with 25 patients in each group. Seventy-five adult American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients being operated for endoscopic lumbar discectomy under different anesthetic regimens, that is, desflurane (D), propofol (P), and sevoflurane(S), were enrolled and were subjected to Treiger Dot Test (TDT), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) preoperatively and at specified intervals postoperatively. Their emergence and early recovery times, complications, and satisfaction levels were also observed.

The authors noted no difference in the TDT and DSST scores in the post recovery period at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1st hour, 2nd hour, 3rd hour, and 4th hour, respectively. MMSE scores in the post recovery period in the different groups were found to be similar (p > 0.05). In patient undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with preoperative MMSE scores >23 under both groups (propofol and sevoflurane), it was observed that postoperatively there was no difference in MMSE scores at 4 hours, similar to the present study.3 The study mentions of early recovery times and lesser emergence duration in desflurane group (8.18 ± 2.26 minutes) as compared with sevoflurane (8.88 ± 2.25 minutes) and propofol (11.35 ± 5.08 minutes). Similar results have been documented in the previous study by Werner et al.4 Another observation to highlight is the time to achieve Modified Aldrete Score of 9 was similar in all the three groups. Looking at the adverse effects, the authors reported higher incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in sevoflurane and desflurane groups in comparison to the propofol group. These findings were similar to the study by Wallenborn et al.5

This study warrants mention of merits and few demerits as well. The strengths are that it was adequately powered and was conducted in a uniformity. The limitations worth stating are that all the three tests used, that is, TDT, DSST, and MMSE, have a practice effect and the scores improve with repetitions giving rise to practice effect bias. Though the authors have tried to use different patterns each time, still the bias cannot be completely ruled out. The study is not double blinded that could have made the methodology more robust. Finally, the long-term outcomes could not be commented upon as the patients were not followed up in the study.

In conclusion, the study throws enough light on the recovery patterns of short-term cognition and psychomotor functions for daycare surgeries with either sevoflurane, desflurane, or propofol for the maintenance of anesthesia. All three modes of anesthesia are equally effective with comparable results.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Funding None.

References

  1. , , , , , , . Postoperative cognitive dysfunction after inhalational anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing major surgery: the influence of anesthetic technique, cerebral injury and systemic inflammation. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015;15:154.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , . Comparison of recovery profiles of patients undergoing endoscopic lumbar discectomy under desflurane, propofol or sevoflurane anesthesia. A randomized, prospective, clinical, comparative study. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2022;13(2):226-235.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Comparative evaluation of the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on cognitive function and memory in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised prospective study. Indian J Anaesth. 2015;59(3):150-155.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , et al . Desflurane allows for a faster emergence when compared to sevoflurane without affecting the baseline cognitive recovery time. Front Med (Lausanne). 2015;2:75.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , . The impact of isoflurane, desflurane, or sevoflurane on the frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting after lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Anesth. 2007;19(3):180-185.
    [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
575

PDF downloads
121
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections