Summary

Background and objective: This study was designed to assess the conditions for endotracheal intubation or insertion of a laryngeal mask airway following an inhalational induction using 8% sevoflurane and nitrous oxide without the use of muscle relaxants or opioids.

Methods: There were two groups: 30 children had endotracheal intubation and 30 children had a laryngeal mask airway inserted. Induction of anaesthesia was accomplished using an inspiratory concentration of sevoflurane 8% in a nitrous oxide and oxygen mixture. After an end-expiratory concentration of sevoflurane of at least 4% had been reached, when the pupils were miotic and centred, the trachea was intubated or a laryngeal mask inserted. The time to loss of consciousness and successful airway management was recorded. Jaw relaxation, movements, visibility, and position of the vocal cords and vital parameters were monitored.

Results: Jaw relaxation was complete in all children. The vocal cords were completely visible in all patients of the tracheal intubation group, whereas vocal cord relaxation was incomplete in five children. Nevertheless, all children had an atraumatic intubation or insertion of the laryngeal mask without the use of a muscle relaxant. Vital signs were stable in both groups. There were no cases of restlessness and/or postoperative shivering. Four patients in the endotracheal group (13.3%) were nauseous and three (10%) vomited, while two children (6.6%) in the laryngeal mask group experienced nausea and vomiting.

Conclusions: Induction with sevoflurane in nitrous oxide and oxygen leads to fast loss of consciousness and provides ideal conditions for managing the airway without supplemental opioids or muscle relaxants. Furthermore, sevoflurane using this technique was very well tolerated, indicated by high haemodynamic stability and a reduced rate of postoperative restlessness, shivering, nausea and vomiting.

Summary

Background and objective: In October 2000, we conducted a national postal survey of day case consultant anaesthetists in the UK to explore the range and variation in practice of anaesthetizing a patient for day case surgery (paediatrics, urology and orthopaedics). This paper reports the findings of this national survey of paediatric day case anaesthetic practice carried out as part of a major two-centre randomized controlled trial designed to investigate the costs and outcome of several anaesthetic techniques during day care surgery in paediatric and adult patients (cost-effectiveness study of anaesthesia in day case surgery).

Methods: The survey used a structured postal questionnaire and collected data on the duration of surgical procedure; the use of premedication; the anaesthetic agents used for induction and maintenance; the fresh gas flow rates used for general anaesthesia; the use of antiemetics; and the administration of local anaesthesia and analgesia.

Results: The overall response rate for the survey was 74 and 63% for the paediatric section of the survey. Respondents indicated that 19% used premedication, 63% used propofol for induction, 54% used isoflurane for maintenance, 24% used prophylactic antiemetics and 85% used a laryngeal mask. The findings of this national survey are discussed and compared with published evidence.

Conclusions: This survey identifies the variation in clinical practice in paediatric day surgery anaesthesia in the UK.