Users Online: 2070 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 

 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 535-540

Randomized double-blind trial comparing effects of low-flow vs high-flow anesthesia on postoperative lung functions using respirometer


1 Department of Anesthesiology, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, (Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Deemed to be University), Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, (Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Deemed to be University), Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. N Gnanasekar
Address Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, (Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Deemed to be University), Thiruporur Guduvanchery Main Road, Ammapettai, Nellikuppam Post, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram - 603 108, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_410_19

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Modern anesthetic practice utilizes low-flow anesthesia with evolving evidence on its pulmonary effects. Studies comparing measurement of vital capacity and inspiratory reserve volume using respirometer in both low-flow and high-flow anesthesia are sparse. We evaluated the effects of low-flow and high-flow anesthesia on postoperative pulmonary functions using respirometer. Material and Methods: This was a prospective randomized double blind study wherein One hundred and ten patients undergoing peripheral surgeries under general anesthesia were allocated into two groups Group I- Low-flow anesthesia with O2 + N2O + Sevoflurane (0.5L + 0.5L + 3.5%) and Group II- High-flow anesthesia with O2 + N2O + Sevoflurane (2L + 2L + 2%). The difference in vital capacity (VC), inspiratory reserve volume (IRV), and peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR) from the preoperative period were compared in both the groups postoperatively. Results: The difference in VC, IRV, and PEFR measured in both the groups between the preoperative and postoperative period were found to be similar and statistically insignificant (P - 0.173, 1.00 and 0.213 respectively). The difference in single breath count (SBC), breath holding time (BHT), and respiratory rates (RR) were also similar in both the groups (P – 0.101, 0.698, and 0.467) respectively. Conclusions: The pulmonary effects of low-flow anesthesia are comparable with the high-flow ones in patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed544    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded93    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal