Cargando…

Clinical Observation of Patients Undergoing Glioma Surgery under Propofol and Sevoflurane Anesthesia: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE: To observe the effects of propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia on patients undergoing glioma surgery. METHODS: 192 patients with gliomas treated in our hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were selected. All patients were randomly divided into observation group and control group. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fang, Junbiao, Wang, Hongfa, Zhang, Weihua, Yang, Kaichuang, Wang, Weiyu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200574/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35720226
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/4516537
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To observe the effects of propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia on patients undergoing glioma surgery. METHODS: 192 patients with gliomas treated in our hospital from January 2016 to January 2021 were selected. All patients were randomly divided into observation group and control group. The observation group was given sevoflurane and the control group was given propofol. The clinical effects of the two groups were observed. RESULTS: Comparison of clinical indexes related to intraoperative conditions between the two groups revealed that the time of anesthesia and extubation after operation in the observation group were shorter than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The amount of intraoperative bleeding in the observation group was less than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in intracranial operation time, operation time, fluid volume, and urine volume between the two groups (P < 05). Comparing the recovery time of anesthesia between the two groups, the recovery time of orientation and the time of eye-opening in the observation group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Comparing the consciousness and cognitive function of the two groups, the OAAS score of the observation group after extubation, before leaving the operating room and 1 hour after extubation, was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the MMSE score l h after extubation was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). Comparing the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups, the number of cases of restlessness, urinary infection, deep vein thrombosis, and hypertension in the observation group was lower than that in the control group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The anesthesia time and extubation time of the sevoflurane anesthesia group were shorter than that of the propofol anesthesia group, and the orientation recovery time and eye-opening time were shortened. The OAAS score of the sevoflurane anesthesia group was higher than that of the propofol anesthesia group after extubation, before extubation, and 1 hour after extubation. The probability of postoperative complications in the sevoflurane anesthesia group was lower than that in the propofol anesthesia group. Sevoflurane anesthesia may be more suitable for surgical induction of glioma patients than propofol anesthesia.