Cargando…

Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model

BACKGROUND: Propofol and remifentanil intravenous combination is one popular form of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in mainstream clinical practice, but it has rarely been applied to a rat model for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Our objective was to establish a safe and re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gazzaz, M., Saini, J., Pagliardini, S., Tsui, B., Jeffery, C., El-Hakim, H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30342558
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-018-0312-9
_version_ 1783364493878755328
author Gazzaz, M.
Saini, J.
Pagliardini, S.
Tsui, B.
Jeffery, C.
El-Hakim, H.
author_facet Gazzaz, M.
Saini, J.
Pagliardini, S.
Tsui, B.
Jeffery, C.
El-Hakim, H.
author_sort Gazzaz, M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Propofol and remifentanil intravenous combination is one popular form of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in mainstream clinical practice, but it has rarely been applied to a rat model for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Our objective was to establish a safe and reproducible general anesthetic protocol for laryngoscopy and endoscopic LEMG in a rat model. Our hypothesis is that TIVA allows a minimally morbid, and feasible laryngoscopy and LEMG. METHODS: Sprague Dawley rats were subjected to either inhalational anesthesia (IA) (isoflurane) or TIVA (propofol and remifentanil) and underwent laryngoscopy and LEMG. The primary outcome was a complete minimally interrupted rigid laryngoscopy and obtaining reproducible motor unit potentials from the posterior cricoarytenoid muscles. The secondary outcome was morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Seventeen out of twenty-two rats underwent both TIVA and IA. Only two underwent IA only. All nineteen rats that underwent IA had a successful experiment. Seventeen rats underwent TIVA, however, only nine completed a successful experiment due to difficulty achieving a surgical plane, and respiratory events. Upon comparing the success of the two anaesthetic regimens, IA was superior to TIVA (P = 0.0008). There was no statistical difference between the amplitudes (p = 0.1985) or motor units burst duration (p = 0.82605) of both methods. Three mortalities were encountered, one of which was due to lidocaine toxicity and two were during anesthetic induction. Respiratory related morbidity was encountered in two rats, all seen with TIVA. CONCLUSIONS: TIVA is not an ideal anesthetic regimen for laryngeal endoscopy and LEMG in rat models. Contrary to our hypothesis, IA did not affect the quality of the LEMG and allowed a seamless rigid endoscopy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40463-018-0312-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6196000
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61960002018-10-30 Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model Gazzaz, M. Saini, J. Pagliardini, S. Tsui, B. Jeffery, C. El-Hakim, H. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Propofol and remifentanil intravenous combination is one popular form of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in mainstream clinical practice, but it has rarely been applied to a rat model for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Our objective was to establish a safe and reproducible general anesthetic protocol for laryngoscopy and endoscopic LEMG in a rat model. Our hypothesis is that TIVA allows a minimally morbid, and feasible laryngoscopy and LEMG. METHODS: Sprague Dawley rats were subjected to either inhalational anesthesia (IA) (isoflurane) or TIVA (propofol and remifentanil) and underwent laryngoscopy and LEMG. The primary outcome was a complete minimally interrupted rigid laryngoscopy and obtaining reproducible motor unit potentials from the posterior cricoarytenoid muscles. The secondary outcome was morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Seventeen out of twenty-two rats underwent both TIVA and IA. Only two underwent IA only. All nineteen rats that underwent IA had a successful experiment. Seventeen rats underwent TIVA, however, only nine completed a successful experiment due to difficulty achieving a surgical plane, and respiratory events. Upon comparing the success of the two anaesthetic regimens, IA was superior to TIVA (P = 0.0008). There was no statistical difference between the amplitudes (p = 0.1985) or motor units burst duration (p = 0.82605) of both methods. Three mortalities were encountered, one of which was due to lidocaine toxicity and two were during anesthetic induction. Respiratory related morbidity was encountered in two rats, all seen with TIVA. CONCLUSIONS: TIVA is not an ideal anesthetic regimen for laryngeal endoscopy and LEMG in rat models. Contrary to our hypothesis, IA did not affect the quality of the LEMG and allowed a seamless rigid endoscopy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40463-018-0312-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6196000/ /pubmed/30342558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-018-0312-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Gazzaz, M.
Saini, J.
Pagliardini, S.
Tsui, B.
Jeffery, C.
El-Hakim, H.
Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model
title Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model
title_full Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model
title_fullStr Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model
title_short Comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model
title_sort comparison of inhaled versus intravenous anesthesia for laryngoscopy and laryngeal electromyography in a rat model
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30342558
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-018-0312-9
work_keys_str_mv AT gazzazm comparisonofinhaledversusintravenousanesthesiaforlaryngoscopyandlaryngealelectromyographyinaratmodel
AT sainij comparisonofinhaledversusintravenousanesthesiaforlaryngoscopyandlaryngealelectromyographyinaratmodel
AT pagliardinis comparisonofinhaledversusintravenousanesthesiaforlaryngoscopyandlaryngealelectromyographyinaratmodel
AT tsuib comparisonofinhaledversusintravenousanesthesiaforlaryngoscopyandlaryngealelectromyographyinaratmodel
AT jefferyc comparisonofinhaledversusintravenousanesthesiaforlaryngoscopyandlaryngealelectromyographyinaratmodel
AT elhakimh comparisonofinhaledversusintravenousanesthesiaforlaryngoscopyandlaryngealelectromyographyinaratmodel