JHSM
Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine

Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine (JHSM) is an unbiased, peer-reviewed, and open access international medical journal. The Journal publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine, interesting case reports, and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, letters, comments, and related knowledge.

ISSN: Active
eISSN: 2636-8579
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Submit Manuscript

Index
Original Article
Comparison of I-Gel insertion conditions with two different induction methods in children: a prospective observational study
Abstract
Aims: Insufficient depth of anesthesia is one of the important causes of laryngospasm in pediatric patients undergoing surgery. Propofol is a widely used anesthetic agent for induction of anesthesia in children. Its use alone in induction may be insufficient to suppress laryngeal reflexes during laryngeal mask insertion and may lead to complications such as cough, hiccups, and laryngospasm. In this study, the effects of fentanyl-ketamine mixture and remifentanil used as co-induction in anesthesia induction in children on I-gel insertion conditions and hemodynamic stability were compared. In addition, the evaluation of propofol injection pain after the use of coinduction agent was made. Material and
Methods: The study included 60 patients aged 2-10 years, of ASA I-III class, who underwent ambulatory surgery. For anesthesia induction, the KF group (n:30) were administered intravenous (iv) 1 mcg/kg fentanyl + 0.5 mg/kg ketamine followed by 3 mg/kg propofol, and the R group (n:30) were administered iv 0.5 mcg/kg remifentanil followed by 3 mg propofol. The I-gel insertion conditions were evaluated by scoring the six variables of mouth opening, ease of insertion, swallowing, coughing, movement, and laryngospasm. Pain during propofol injection was graded using a four-point scale.
Results: No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in terms of I-gel insertion conditions total score values (p>0.05). The pain of the propofol injection was determined at a significantly higher level in Group R (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Both induction methods were seen to be easy to apply and provide sufficient success in I-gel insertion. No laryngospasm was observed in either group. More effective relief of propofol injection pain in the fentanyl-ketamine group provided calmer and more stable induction conditions. In this respect, it may be preferable to use fentanyl and low-dose ketamine together as co-induction.

Keywords : Co-induction, ketamine, remifentanil, fentanyl, child

Download Article


1. Chekol WB, Melesse DY. Incidence and associated factors oflaryngospasm among pediatric patients who underwent surgeryunder general anesthesia, in University of Gondar CompressiveSpecialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia, 2019: a Cross-SectionalStudy Anesthesiol Res Pract 2020; 2020: 6.
2. Aberra B, Aregawi A, Teklay G and Tasew H. Effect of ketofolversus propofol as an induction agent on ease of laryngealmask airway insertion conditions and hemodynamic stabilityin pediatrics: an observational prospective cohort study BMCAnesthesiol 2019; 19: 41.
3. Rigby-Jones AE, Sneyd JR. Propofol and children - what we knowand what we do not know. Review Artıcle Pediatric Anesthesia2011; 21: 247-54.
4. Eftekhari J, Haki BK, Tizro P, Alizadeh V. A comparison tofacilitate insertion of the laryngeal mask: term of recovery andpostoperative nausea and vomiting after anesthesia with propofol-atracurium and thiopentalatracurium. Acta Medica Iranica 2015;53: 117-21.
5. Kwak HJ, Kim JY, Kim YB, Chae YJ. The optimum bolus doseof remifentanil to facilitate laryngeal mask airway insertionwith a single standard dose of propofol at induction in children.Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 954-58
6. Gupta A, Kaur S, Attri JP, Saini N. Comparative evaluation ofketamine-propofol, fentanyl-propofol and butorphanol-propofolon haemodynamics and laryngeal mask airway insertionconditions. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2011; 27: 74.
7. Yousef GT, Elsayed KM. A clinical comparison of ketofol (ketamineand propofol admixture) versus propofol as an induction agenton quality of laryngeal mask airway insertion and hemodynamicstability in children. Anesth Essays Res 2013; 7: 194.
8. Begec Z, Demirbilek S, Onal D, et al. Ketamine or alfentaniladministration prior to propofol anaesthesia: The effects on proseallaryngeal mask airway insertion conditions and haemodynamicchanges in children Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 282-6.
9. Cameron E, Johnston G, Crofts S, Morton NS. The minimumeffective dose of lignocaine to prevent injection pain due topropofol in children. Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 604-6
10. Murphy KR, Myors B. Statistical power analysis: A simple andgeneral model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. 2nded. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004.
11. Yildirim G&uuml;&ccedil;l&uuml; &Ccedil;, Karadağ Erko&ccedil; S, Bermede AO, et al. Comparisonof ketamine-propofol vs remifentanyl-propofol induction onlaryngeal mask insertion conditions: Which is the ideal inductionagent combination? J Anesthesia JARSS 2017; 25: 11 - 5.
12. Goh PK, Chiu CL, Wang CY, Chan YK, Loo PL. Randomizeddouble-blind comparison of ketamine-propofol, fentanyl-propofol and propofol-saline on haemodynamics and laryngealmask airway insertion conditions. Anaesth Intensive Care 2005;33: 223-8.
13. Goel S, Bhardwaj N, Jain K. Efficacy of ketamine and midazolamas co-induction agents with propofol for laryngeal mask insertionin children. Pediatr Anesth 2008; 18: 628-34
14. Singh R, Arora M, Vajifdar H. Randomized double-blindcomparison of ketamine-propofol and fentanyl-propofol for theinsertion of laryngeal mask airway in children. J AnaesthesiolClin Pharmacol 2011; 27: 91-6
15. Sağır &Ouml;, Balkaya AN, &Ouml;zaslan S, et al. Comparison of the effectsof fentanyl-propofol and ketamine-propofol on the insertion ofproseal laryngeal mask airway and recovery time in ambulatorysurgery. J Anesthesia - JARSS 2013; 21: 216-23.
16. Riedel W, Neeck G. Nociception, pain, and antinociception:Current concepts. Z Rheumatol 2001; 60: 404-15.
17. Mercandante S, Portenoy RK. Opioid poorly responsive cancerpain. Part 2: Mechanisms that could shift dose response foranalgesia. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001; 21: 225-34.
18. Lee MP, Kua JS, Chiu WK. The use of remifentanil to facilitatethe insertion of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 2001;93: 359-62.
19. Yazıcıoğlu H, Muslu S, Yamak B, Erdemli E. Laryngeal maskairway insertion with remifentanil. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 2005;56: 171-6.
20. Bouvet L, Da-Col X, Rimmel&eacute; T, Allaouchiche B, Chassard D,Boselli E. Optimal remifentanil dose for laryngeal mask airwayinsertion when co-administered with a single standard dose ofpropofol. Can J Anaesth 2010; 57: 222-9.
21. Kayhan GE, Begec Z, Sanli M, Gedik E, and Durmus M.Performance of size 1 I-Gel compared with size 1 proseal laryngealmask in anesthetized ınfants and neonates. Scientific World J2015; 2015: 42618.
22. Ghatak T, Singh D, Kapoor R, Bogra J. Effects of addition ofketamine, fentanyl and saline with Propofol induction onhemodynamics and laryngeal mask airway insertion conditionsin oral clonidine premedicated children. Saudi J Anaesth 2012;6: 140-4.
23. Cheam EW, Chui PT. Randomised double-blind comparisonof fentanyl, mivacurium or placebo to facilitate laryngeal maskairway insertion. J Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 323-6.
24. Jalota L, Kalira V, George E, et al. Prevention of pain on injectionof propofol: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2011; 342:d1110.
25. Al-Refai AR, Al-Mujadi H, Ivanova MP, Marzouk HM, BatraYK, Al-Qattan AR. Prevention of pain on injection of propofol:a comparison of remifentanil with alfentanil in children MinervaAnestesiol 2007; 73: 219-23.
26. Basaranoglu G, Erden V, Delatioglu H. Reduction of pain onınjection of propofol: a comparison of fentanyl with remifentanil.Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 1040-5.
27. Zhao G, Guo Y, Bao MS Meng L, Zhang L. Prevention of propofol-induced pain in children: pretreatment with small doses ofketamine. J Clin Anesthesia 2012: 24; 284-8.
Article available in :
Volume 6, Issue 2, 2023
Page : 330-335
https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1220132
Article Information
Received : 21 Ara 2022
Accepted : 30 Oca 2023
Published : 27 Mar 2023
Corresponding Author :

Hülya Kaşıkara: Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[email protected]
Citation : Kaşıkara H, Özmert S. Comparison of I-Gel insertion conditions with two different induction methods in children: a prospective observational study. J Health Sci Med 2023; 6(2): 330-335.

Read: 172
Cited: 0
Download : 146
_Footer