Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on June 17, 2006
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006 97(2):154-159; doi:10.1093/bja/ael141
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
97/2/154    most recent
ael141v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow E-letters: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rasmussen, L.S.
Right arrow Articles by Jakobsson, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rasmussen, L.S.
Right arrow Articles by Jakobsson, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of xenon with propofol for supplementary general anaesthesia for knee replacement: a randomized study

L.S. Rasmussen1,*, W. Schmehl2 and J. Jakobsson3

1 Department of Anaesthesia, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
2 Linde Gas Therapeutics Hamburg, Germany
3 The Karolinska Institutet Sabbatsberg Hospital Stockholm, Sweden

*Corresponding author: Department of Anaesthesia 4231, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: lsr{at}rh.dk

Background. Xenon anaesthesia is associated with rapid recovery and may also offer protection against neuronal damage. The aim of this study was to compare xenon with propofol for supplementary general anaesthesia in patients undergoing knee replacement in spinal anaesthesia.

Methods. In total, 39 patients aged 60 or over were randomized to xenon 50–70% or propofol 3–5 mg kg–1 h–1. Vital signs and emergence time were recorded and cognitive function was assessed before operation, at discharge between the third and the fifth day and at 3 months using four neuropsychological tests.

Results. Propofol supplementation was necessary in six xenon patients (29%) because of detectable movement of the upper body. Emergence time was significantly shorter with xenon (260 s for xenon and 590 s for propofol, P=0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in blood pressure, heart rate, ventilatory frequency or end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration. No difference could be detected in cognitive function, which may be attributed to insufficient sample-size rather than the absence of a true difference.

Conclusions. Xenon was well tolerated for supplementary general anaesthesia in elderly spontaneously breathing patients but supplementation may be necessary. Compared with propofol, emergence was faster with xenon. A larger sample-size is needed if cognitive function is to be addressed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
M. Coburn, J.-H. Baumert, D. Roertgen, V. Thiel, M. Fries, M. Hein, O. Kunitz, B. Fimm, and R. Rossaint
Emergence and early cognitive function in the elderly after xenon or desflurane anaesthesia: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial
Br. J. Anaesth., June 1, 2007; 98(6): 756 - 762.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

E-letters:

Read all E-letters

Combined anesthesia and integration of mechanisms. Mixing flavour for a better recipe
Davide Cattano, et al.
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 19 Dec 2006 [Full text]

Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.