Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 83 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts


 
Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 594-599  

The impact of sevoflurane and propofol anesthetic induction on bag mask ventilation in surgical patients with high body mass index


Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Management, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Date of Submission17-Feb-2021
Date of Decision24-Feb-2021
Date of Acceptance25-Feb-2021
Date of Web Publication27-May-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Hani I Taman
84, Ffordd Yr Olchfa, Swansea SA2 7RF, UK

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_20_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Background and Aims: Obesity is associated with restrictive ventilatory pattern which causes rapid oxygen desaturation. Although obesity is considered as a risk factor for difficult airway management, failure to achieve effective bag mask ventilation (BMV) can be catastrophic. This study tried to assess the effect of both propofol and sevoflurane on the efficacy of BMV during anesthetic induction in obese patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 200 cases were included, and they were randomly divided into two equal groups; Group S which included 100 cases who underwent sevoflurane induction, and Group P which included the remaining 100 cases who underwent propofol induction. Results: No statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups regarding patient and air way characteristics (P > 0.05). Difficult BMV (DBMV) was encountered in 19% and 37% of cases in Groups S and P, respectively. The incidence of DBMV was significantly increased in the P group (P = 0.005). Furthermore, the severity of difficulty was more marked in the P group. Logistic regression analysis revealed that thyromental distance, presence of macroglossia, presence of beard, lack of teeth, history of snoring, as well as propofol induction were risk factors for DBMV. Conclusion: Sevoflurane can facilitate BMV and provide better intubation conditions in comparison to propofol during anesthetic induction in morbidly obese patients. Moreover, decreased thyromental distance, presence of macroglossia and beard, lack of teeth, and history of snoring are considered preoperative indicators of DBMV.

Keywords: Desaturation, difficult ventilation, obesity, oxygen consumption, preoxygenation, restrictive pattern


How to cite this article:
Farid AM, Taman HI. The impact of sevoflurane and propofol anesthetic induction on bag mask ventilation in surgical patients with high body mass index. Anesth Essays Res 2020;14:594-9

How to cite this URL:
Farid AM, Taman HI. The impact of sevoflurane and propofol anesthetic induction on bag mask ventilation in surgical patients with high body mass index. Anesth Essays Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 24];14:594-9. Available from: https://www.aeronline.org/text.asp?2020/14/4/594/316972


   Introduction Top


Anesthetists encourage to understand the impact of obesity on anesthetic practice as obesity has become an international epidemic over the past decades.[1] Obesity is associated with restrictive ventilatory pattern which decreases the chest wall compliance and impair diaphragm descent, especially when patient position changed from sitting to supine.[2],[3],[4] Added to that, obese patients have high oxygen consumption due to their high metabolic rate with more basal lung atelectasis when compared to lean patients.[5]

As a result, with inadequate preoxygenation, oxygen desaturation may occur within 1–2 min following anesthetic apnea.[6],[7],[8],[9] This shorten the time for airway management, especially in “can't intubate, can't ventilate” situations.[10],[11]

Yet, obesity has been considered as a risk factor for the possibility of difficult airway management, especially difficult bag mask ventilation (DBMV).[12],[13]

Failure to achieve effective BMV can be catastrophic. It may lead to permanent brain damage or death particularly if associated with difficult intubation.[14] Effective BMV can indeed minimize or reverse hypoxia, particularly if timely successful intubation is impossible.[15],[16]

Propofol and sevoflurane are common anesthetic agents used for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. Both cause rapid changes in the depth of anesthesia, a favorable emergence profile, and minimal postoperative morbidity.[17] Studies comparing propofol with sevoflurane in intubated adults have shown them to be similar in terms of cardiorespiratory effects, emergence times, and monitor. However, emergence is more rapid and excitatory phenomena more common with sevoflurane.[18] Although both propofol and sevoflurane are common anesthetic agents, their impact on BMV efficiency during induction of anesthesia was not assessed before.

Aim

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, the primary aim was to compare the effect of both propofol and sevoflurane on the efficacy of BMV during anesthetic induction in obese patients with low physiological reserve to ensure preparation of appropriate airway choices. In addition, risk factors and the incidence of DBMV in obese patients were assessed.


   Patients and Methods Top


This prospective randomized study was conducted at Mansoura University main hospital in collaboration with general surgery unit during the period between June 2020 and January 2021. An informed written consent was obtained from all cases after the explanation of the benefits and drawbacks of each technique of induction. Furthermore, the study was approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB number R.20.06.879), Mansoura University on June 15, 2020. This study was done according to the Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice (Brazil, 2013).

All patients with high body mass index (BMI) (>30 kg.m−2), aged between 18 and 60 years, having American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status Classes I and II, and predicted to be difficult for BMV (defined as the presence of two or more signs of difficult BMV including: age >55 years, BMI >26 kg.m−2, presence of beard, history of snoring, or lack of teeth[19]) and scheduled for elective operations using general anesthesia were enrolled in the current study.

Patients with severe systemic comorbidities, ASA physical status classes >II, history of difficult intubation, or refuse to participate in the study were excluded from the study.

Sample size was calculated based on a previous study which compared tidal volume between patient with or without history of sleep breathing disorders, based on the tidal volume. The calculated sample size was 84 patients in each arm with α = 0.05 (two tailed) and β = 0.8 (Sigma Plot 12.0; Systat Software Inc., USA). Accordingly, total sample size will be 186 cases. We intentionally increased the number of participants to 200 to compensate for dropout and missed cases.[20]

A total of 200 cases were included, and they were divided using a computer-generated randomization software and numbered sealed envelopes into two equal groups; Group S which included 100 cases who underwent sevoflurane induction, and Group P which included the remaining 100 cases who underwent propofol induction.

All patients were evaluated preoperatively for tolerability of the surgery according to our local protocol. Airway assessment included: Mallampati pharyngeal classification, interincisor gap, thyromental distance, sternomental distance with the neck fully extended, dentition status, neck circumference at the thyroid cartilage level, facial or neck trauma, presence of facial hair, nasal deficiencies, and neck mobility grade. Furthermore, diagnosis of OSA was done according to patient history, and BMI was measured for all cases.

Patients were asked to fast for 6 h for solids 2 h for clear fluids. In the operative theater, patients were placed in supine position with oxford pillow below their head and chest. Basic monitoring was attached including noninvasive blood pressure, heart rate, pulse oximetry, electrocardiography, bispectral index (BIS), and capnography (connected to face mask). Intravenous (i.v.) access was established in the nondominant hand. Crystalloid lactated Ringer's solution was infused (1 mg.kg−1 of the ideal body weight).

Preoxygenation was started with 100% O2 until the expired oxygen saturation was >98%. Induction of anesthesia was performed using either i.v. 1.5–2.5 mg.kg−1 propofol in Group P or inhalation of 8% sevoflurane through a face mask connected to semi-closed breathing circuit after priming the circuit with 8% sevoflurane with a fresh gas flow of 6.0 L/min in Group S.

After confirming loss of consciousness, verbal contact, eyelash reflex, and BIS value <60, face mask was firmly applied to the patient face by one-handed maneuver using best airway opening technique. After that, ventilation was manually performed for 2 min at rate 12 cycle/min, trying to maintain an inspiratory pressure of 15 cmH2O (the adjustable pressure limiting valve was settled at 15 cmH2O), with observation of synchronized bilateral expansion of the chest, auscultation, and capnography. Rocuronium 1 mg.kg−1 bodyweight was injected after that to facilitate the endotracheal intubation.

We used the ASA task force definition of difficult mask ventilation established when it is not possible for the unassisted anesthesiologist to maintain the oxygen saturation (SpO2) >90% by 100% oxygen and positive pressure mask ventilation in a patient whose SpO2 was >90% before anesthetic intervention; and/or it is not possible for the unassisted anesthesiologist to prevent or reverse signs of inadequate ventilation during positive pressure mask ventilation.[21]

A severity score was used to grade difficult BMV; Grade 0 = easy, Grade 1 = use of oral airway, Grade 2 = need for two handed ventilation, and Grade 3 = requirement of supraglottic device. True DBMV was identified if considered true DBMV if it was graded as 2 or 3, and false DBMV was identified if the grade was 0 or 1.[22]

Statistical analysis

The collected data were analyzed through the SPSS version 24 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The normality of data was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical data analysis. Continuous normally distributed data were analyzed using independent sample t-test. Nonparametric data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and post hoc Wilcox on rank sum t-tests, when appropriate. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median and range, and number (%). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


Starting with demographics, the mean age of the included cases was 59.51 and 60.13 years in the S and P groups, respectively. Females represented 50% and 53% of cases in the study groups, respectively, whereas the remaining cases were males. BMI had mean values of 39.97 and 39.75 kg.m−2 in both groups, respectively. Neither of the previously mentioned demographic variables was significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). [Table 1] illustrates these data.
Table 1: Demographic characteristics in the studied groups

Click here to view


As regard Mallampati score, score I was present in 51% and 61% of cases in the study groups, respectively, while the remaining cases had score II. Mouth opening had mean values of 45.2 and 46.48 mm in the same groups. Furthermore, the mean values of thyromental distance were 84.47 and 81.80 mm in the same groups, respectively. Macroglossia was present in 5% and 7% of cases, whereas receding mandible was detected in 21% and 27% of cases in both groups, respectively. Beard was present in 6% and 9% of cases, while snoring was reported by 56% and 57% of the included cases in both groups in order of speech. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding any of the previously mentioned variables (P > 0.05), [Table 2].
Table 2: Predictors of difficult bag mask ventilation in the studied groups

Click here to view


DBMV was encountered in 19% and 37% of cases in Groups S and P, respectively. There was a significant increase in DBMV in the P group (P = 0.005). All difficult cases in the S group were managed either by oral airway or two-handed ventilation, while in the other group, difficult cases were managed wither by oral airway, two-handed ventilation, or supraglottic device. These data are illustrated in [Table 3].
Table 3: Incidence of difficult bag mask ventilation and its severity in both groups

Click here to view


Logistic regression analysis revealed that thyromental distance, presence of macroglossia, presence of beard, lack of teeth, history of snoring, as well as propofol induction were risk factors for DBMV. [Table 4] illustrates these data.
Table 4: Univariable logistic regression for the incidence of difficult bag mask ventilation

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Facemask ventilation is an essential element of airway management during anesthetic induction; however, the prediction of airway management difficulties remains a challenge. Better prediction may reduce morbidity and mortality by adequate preparation of relevant personnel and appropriate equipment.[23]

To the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of studies which have discussed the induction method (i.v. or inhalational) implication on BMV. Most of the existing studies compared the same drugs in laryngeal mask airway not face mask ventilation.[24],[25]

Our data showed that DBMV occurred in both propofol and sevoflurane groups, although, there was a significant increase in DBMV in P group (P = 0.005) when compared to sevoflurane group. DBMV was encountered in 19% and 37% of cases in Groups S and P, respectively.

Sevoflurane can improve BMV by different mechanism. Sevoflurane decreases lung resistance with moderate bronchodilation, even in subjects without hyperreactive airway disease.[26],[27] The bronchodilator effect of sevoflurane is a result of either indirect inhibition of the neural reflex pathways or by direct effects on airway smooth muscle cells.[28] The direct airway smooth muscle relaxation induced by sevoflurane is linked to a reduction in the intracellular concentration of free Ca ions which acts as a key second messenger inside these cells.[29],[30] Moreover, sevoflurane slightly but significantly increases the dynamic compliance without changing the lung resistance.[26]

Propofol can facilitate BMV through its effect on laryngeal muscle tone. Propofol can attenuate laryngospasm incidence on induction of anesthesia by suppressing the laryngeal reflex[31],[32] through inhibition of upper airway muscle activity either by central or peripheral reflex pathways inhibition together with its significant inhibiting effects on phasic genioglossus muscle activity. This contributes to its ability to maintain the upper airway patency and BMV facilitation.[33],[34]

Added to that, propofol has an inhibitory effect on diaphragmatic contractility and relaxation. It acts either presynaptically to inhibit neuromuscular transmission or at the muscle membrane to inhibit muscular contraction.[35] This can result in a fall in lung volume based on suggestions from previous studies.[36],[37]

The superiority of sevoflurane on propofol in facilitating BMV according to our study results may be attributed to the fact that both propofol and sevoflurane have different inhibitory effects on genioglossus muscle, hence affecting upper airway patency. These differences are mostly related to the differential inhibitory effects of both agents on neural drive to the genioglossus muscle. Potential sources of such inhibition are the inhibitory neurotransmitters – aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glycine.[38] Propofol can act mainly on the GABA receptor[39],[40] and sevoflurane-like isoflurane acts on both the glycine and GABA receptors.[41],[42] As a results sevoflurane-like isoflurane inhibits genioglossus muscle activity more profoundly than propofol.

According to the current study, more patients in propofol group required additional doses to obtain adequate BMV. This finding demonstrates the better quality of conditions for BMV placement given by sevoflurane. In similar study by Molloy et al., additional doses of propofol were required to obtain suitable insertion condition for LMA like those obtained with sevoflurane induction of anesthesia.[43]

The previous study was conducted to estimate the risk factors for DBMV reported that the rate of DBMV was 5%.[15] Other results reported different rates ranging between 0.07% and 1.4%.[44],[45],[46] These studies reported lower rates compared to ours and that could be explained by the fact that all of these studies included patients with BMI lower than our study. Increased BMI has been known to be a significant risk factor for DBMV.[15],[47] This could be also due to different definitions existing for DBMV.

The results obtained in our study could be explained by the fact that propofol causes relaxation of upper air way muscles and loss of air way reflexes. Furthermore, its dose is guided by patient weight.[48] On the other hand, sevoflurane does not express that strong inhibitory effect on respiratory muscles and reflexes.[49],[50] Moreover, its dose is guided by patient inhalation. Therefore, if obstruction is going to happen, partial airway collapse will decrease sevoflurane intake, leading to decrease in drug uptake to prevent further collapse.

Ryken TC have reported that the incidence of apnea was significantly higher in the propofol group compared to sevoflurane group (9/36 vs. 2/36 – P = 0.049).[51]

In the current study, we identified decreased thyromental distance, presence of macroglossia, lack of teeth, presence of beard, history of snoring, along with propofol induction as independent risk factor for DBMV.

Langeron et al. reported that age >55 years (P = 0.002), the presence of beard (P = 0.006), BMI >26 kg.m − 2 (P < 0.001), lack of teeth (P = 0.006), and history of snoring (P = 0.02) were significant predictors of DBMV.[44]

Another study reported that a history of snoring (P = 0.004) and thyromental distance <6 cm (P = 0.04) were the only independent factors for DBMV.[52]

Sachs reported that increased neck circumference, male gender, sleep apnea, presence of beard, snoring, BMI >26 kg.m−2, along with lack of teeth were significant risk factors for DBMV.[53]

Although studies in the literature agree on some risk factors, there is a heterogenicity regarding others and that could be explained by different sample size, patient, or air way characteristics.

Our study has some limitations; first of all, it is a single-center study. Furthermore, the incidence of difficult intubation should have been assessed as well. Furthermore, we did not conduct polysomnography in our patients such that obstructive sleep apnea cannot formally be excluded.


   Conclusion Top


Sevoflurane can facilitate BMV and provide better intubation conditions in comparison to propofol during anesthetic induction in morbidly obese patients. Moreover, decreased thyromental distance, presence of macroglossia and beard, lack of teeth, and history of snoring are considered preoperative indicators of DBMV.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Malnick SD, Knobler H. The medical complications of obesity. QJM 2006;99:565-79.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Harrington J, Lee-Chiong T. Obesity and aging. Clin Chest Med 2009;30:609-14.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
McCool FD, Rochester DF. The lungs and chest wall diseases. In: Murray JF, Nadel JA, editors. The Textbook of Respiratory Medicine. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. WB Saunders; 1994. p. 2537-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Altermatt FR, Munoz HR, Delfino AE, Cortinez LI. Preoxygenation in the obese patient: Effects of position on tolerance to apnoea. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:706-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Huang KC, Kormas N, Steinbeck K, Loughnan G, Caterson ID. Resting metabolic rate in severely obese diabetic and nondiabetic subjects. Obes Res 2004;12:840-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Eichenberger A, Proietti S, Wicky S, Frascarolo P, Suter M, Spahn DR, et al. Morbid obesity and postoperative pulmonary atelectasis: An underestimated problem. Anesth Analg 2002;95:1788-92.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Murphy C, Wong DT. Airway management and oxygenation in obese patients. Can J Anaesth 2013;60:929-45.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Edmark L, Östberg E, Scheer H, Wallquist W, Hedenstierna G, Zetterström H. Preserved oxygenation in obese patients receiving protective ventilation during laparoscopic surgery: A randomized controlled study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2016;60:26-35.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Jense HG, Dubin SA, Silverstein PI, O'Leary-Escolas U. Effect of obesity on safe duration of apnea in anesthetized humans. Anesth Analg 1991;72:89-93.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Arens R, Sin S, Nandalike K, Rieder J, Khan UI, Freeman K, et al. Upper airway structure and body fat composition in obese children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011;183:782-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Juvin P, Lavaut E, Dupont H, Lefevre P, Demetriou M, Dumoulin JL, et al. Difficult tracheal intubation is more common in obese than in lean patients. Anesth Analg 2003;97:595-600.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Langeron O, Birenbaum A, Le Saché F, Raux M. Airway management in obese patient. Minerva Anestesiol 2014;80:382-92.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Binks A, Pyke M. Anaesthesia for the obese patient. Anaesth Intensive Care Med 2008;9:299-302.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Kheterpal S, Martin L, Shanks AM, Tremper KK. Prediction and outcomes of impossible mask ventilation: A review of 50,000 anesthetics. Anesthesiology 2009;110:891-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C, Guggiari M, Bianchi A, Coriat P, et al. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation. Anesthesiology 2000;92:1229-36.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Yentis SM. Predicting trouble in airway management. Anesthesiology 2006;105:871-2.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Lerman J. Sevoflurane in pediatric anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1995;81:S4-10.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Keller C, Sparr HJ, Brimacombe J. Positive pressure ventilation in non-paralysed adult patients with the laryngeal mask airway: A comparison of sevoflurane and propofol maintenance techniques. Br J Anaesth 1998;80:332-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists. JSA airway management guideline 2014: To improve the safety of induction of anesthesia. J Anesth 2014;28:482-93.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Shin S, Makoto H, Megumi O, Junko O, Yuji K, Yumi S, et al. Mask ventilation during induction of general anesthesia, influences of obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2017;126:28-38.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, Blitt CD, Connis RT, Nickinovich DG, et al. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2013;118:251-70.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Cattano D, Killoran PV, Cai C, Katsiampoura AD, Corso RM, Hagberg CA. Difficult mask ventilation in general surgical population: Observation of risk factors and predictors. F1000Res 2014;3:204.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Nørskov AK, Wetterslev J, Rosenstock CV, Afshari A, Astrup G, Jakobsen JC, et al. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation using a systematic assessment of risk factors vs. existing practice – A cluster randomised clinical trial in 94,006 patients. Anaesthesia 2017;72:296-308.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Molloy ME, Buggy DJ, Scanlon P. Propofol or sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion. Can J Anaesth 1999;46:322-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Chava SG, Mandhyan S, Gujar SH, Shinde GP. Comparison of sevoflurane and propofol for laryngeal mask airway insertion and pressor response in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2017;33:97-102.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Rooke GA, Choi JH, Bishop MJ. The effect of isoflurane, halothane, sevoflurane, and thiopental/nitrous oxide on respiratory system resistance after tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1997;86:1294-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Goff MJ, Arain SR, Ficke DJ, Uhrich TD, Ebert TJ. Absence of bronchodilation during desflurane anesthesia: A comparison to sevoflurane and thiopental. Anesthesiology 2000;93:404-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Brichant JF, Gunst SJ, Warner DO, Rehder K. Halothane, enflurane, and isoflurane depress the peripheral vagal motor pathway in isolated canine tracheal smooth muscle. Anesthesiology 1991;74:325-32.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Yamakage M. Direct inhibitory mechanisms of halothane on canine tracheal smooth muscle contraction. Anesthesiology 1992;77:532-46.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Jones KA, Wong GY, Lorenz RR, Warner DO, Sieck GC. Effects of halothane on the relationship between cytosolic calcium and force in airway smooth muscle. Am J Physiol 1994;266:L199-204.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Batra YK, Ivanova M, Ali SS, Shamsah M, Al Qattan AR, Belani KG. The efficacy of a subhypnotic dose of propofol in preventing laryngospasm following tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2005;15:1094-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Oberer C, von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Frei FJ, Erb TO. Respiratory reflex responses of the larynx differ between sevoflurane and propofol in pediatric patients. Anesthesiology 2005;103:1142-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Eastwood PR, Platt PR, Shepherd K, Maddison K, Hillman DR. Collapsibility of the upper airway at different concentrations of propofol anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2005;103:470-7.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Mathew OP, Abu-Osba YK, Thach BT. Influence of upper airway pressure changes on genioglossus muscle respiratory activity. J Appl Physiol 1982;52:438-44.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Abdel-Zaher AO, Askar FG. The myoneural effects of propofol emulsion (Diprivan) on the nerve-muscle preparations of rats. Pharmacol Res 1997;36:323-32.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Hubmayr RD, Litchy WJ, Gay PC, Nelson SB. Transdiaphragmatic twitch pressure. Effects of lung volume and chest wall shape. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989;139:647-52.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Hamnegård CH, Wragg S, Mills G, Kyroussis D, Road J, Daskos G, et al. The effect of lung volume on transdiaphragmatic pressure. Eur Respir J 1995;8:1532-6.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Li YQ, Takada M, Kaneko T, Mizuno N. Distribution of GABAergic and glycinergic premotor neurons projecting to the facial and hypoglossal nuclei in the rat. J Comp Neurol 1997;378:283-94.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
O'Brien JA, Berger AJ. Cotransmission of GABA and glycine to brain stem motoneurons. J Neurophysiol 1999;82:1638-41.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Morrison JL, Sood S, Liu X, Liu H, Park E, Nolan P, et al. Glycine at hypoglossal motor nucleus: Genioglossus activity, CO(2) responses, and the additive effects of GABA. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2002;93:1786-96.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Harrison NL, Kugler JL, Jones MV, Greenblatt EP, Pritchett DB. Positive modulation of human gamma-aminobutyric acid type A and glycine receptors by the inhalation anesthetic isoflurane. Mol Pharmacol 1993;44:628-32.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Irifune M, Takarada T, Shimizu Y, Endo C, Katayama S, Dohi T, et al. Propofol-induced anesthesia in mice is mediated by gamma-aminobutyric acid – A and excitatory amino acid receptors. Anesth Analg 2003;97:424-6.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Molloy ME, Buggy DJ, Scanlon P. Propofol or sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion. Can J Anaesth 1999;46:322-6.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Rose DK, Cohen MM. The airway: Problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Can J Anaesth 1994;41:372-83.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Asai T, Koga K, Vaughan RS. Respiratory complications associated with tracheal intubation and extubation. Br J Anaesth 1998;80:767-75.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
El-Ganzouri AR, McCarthy RJ, Tuman KJ, Tanck EN, Ivankovich AD. Preoperative airway assessment: Predictive value of a multivariate risk index. Anesth Analg 1996;82:1197-204.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Sato S, Hasegawa M, Okuyama M, Okazaki J, Kitamura Y, Sato Y, et al. Mask ventilation during induction of general anesthesia: Influences of obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2017;126:28-38.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Chidambaran V, Costandi A, D'Mello A. Propofol: A review of its role in pediatric anesthesia and sedation. CNS Drugs 2015;29:543-63.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Bilotta F, Doronzio A, Cuzzone V, Caramia R, Rosa G, PINOCCHIO Study Group. Early postoperative cognitive recovery and gas exchange patterns after balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane or desflurane in overweight and obese patients undergoing craniotomy: A prospective randomized trial. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2009;21:207-13.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Bilotta F, Spinelli F, Centola G, Caramia R, Rosa G. A comparison of propofol and sevoflurane anaesthesia for percutaneous trigeminal ganglion compression. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005;22:233-5.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Ryken TC, Hurlbert RJ, Hadley MN, Aarabi B, Dhall SS, Gelb DE, et al. The acute cardiopulmonary management of patients with cervical spinal cord injuries. Neurosurgery 2013;72 Suppl 2:84-92.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Kheterpal S, Han R, Tremper KK, Shanks A, Tait AR, O'Reilly M, et al. Incidence and predictors of difficult and impossible mask ventilation. Anesthesiology 2006;105:885-91.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
McCool FD, Rochester DF. The lungs and chest wall diseases. In: Murray JF, Nadel JA, editors. The Textbook of Respiratory Medicine. Vol. 2. The McGraw-Hill Companies: WB Saunders; 1994. p. 2537 9.  Back to cited text no. 53
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Patients and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed140    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal