Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 41587104

Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring Using Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Desflurane-Dexmedetomidine Anesthesia During Spinal Cord Tumor Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jennifer Shalini Ravikumar·Srinivas Babu·Bijesh R Nair·Bijesh Yadav·A Benjamin Franklin·Georgene Singh
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing resection of spinal cord tumours require intraoperative neuromonitoring. Transcranial electrical stimulation is used to record myogenic responses during surgery. This study aimed to compare the effect of 2 anaesthetic regimens, propofol/fentanyl versus desflurane/dexmedetomidine, on the ability to record MEPs with an amplitude of 50 µV or greater. Our secondary outcome compared intraoperative haemodynamics, recovery profile, and postoperative analgesia between the groups. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, open-label, single-centre, randomized controlled trial of 50 adult patients undergoing spinal cord tumour resection with TcmMEP monitoring. Patients were randomized to 2 groups: Group P (n=25) received intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl; group D (n=25) received desflurane and dexmedetomidine. RESULTS: We recorded TcmMEP's in 80% of group P and 76% group D (95% CI: -23% to 31%, P =1.00). The time in minutes for spontaneous breathing (21.04±11.31 vs. 8.00±3.42 [8.29-,17.79, P =0.01]), extubation (31.56±17.56 vs. 10.84±3.99 [13.48-27.96; P =0.01]), emergence (33.68±18.11 vs. 10.92±4.01 [15.30-30.22, P =0.001]), discharge readiness (45.00±25.24 vs. 15.56±6.08 [19.00-39.88; P =0.001]) and requirement of first analgesia (136.6±108.04 vs. 230.8±81.33) (-148.58 to -39.82; P =0.01) was lower in group D compared with group P. Postoperative analgesia assessed using the Visual Analogue Score was lower in group D compared with group P at 12 and 24 hours. (1.68±1.18 vs. 0.64±1.31 [0.33-1.74 P =0.001]) :1.4±0.95 vs. 0.36± 0.70 (0.56-1.51; P =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found similar rates of successful TcMEP monitoring using desflurane-dexmedetomidine and propofol-fentanyl. Patients who received desflurane-dexmedetomidine had reduced emergence time, discharge readiness, and lower pain scores in the postoperative period.

Explore related subjects

HumansPropofolDesfluraneFentanylFemaleDexmedetomidineDouble-Blind MethodEvoked Potentials, MotorMaleMiddle AgedAdultProspective StudiesAnesthetics, IntravenousSpinal Cord NeoplasmsMonitoring, IntraoperativeNeuroanesthesiadexmedetomidineintravenous anaesthesiapropofolspinal cord tumorstranscranial myogenic motor evoked potentialsJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jennifer Shalini Ravikumar, Srinivas Babu, Bijesh R Nair, Bijesh Yadav, A Benjamin Franklin, Georgene Singh. 2026-01-26. Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring Using Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Desflurane-Dexmedetomidine Anesthesia During Spinal Cord Tumor Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.. https://doi.org/10.1097/ana.0000000000001087

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Comparative Study resourceAdult subjectAnesthetics, Intravenous subjectComparative Study subjectDexmedetomidine subjectDouble-Blind Method subjectEvoked Potentials, Motor subjectFemale subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectMale subjectMiddle Aged subjectRandomized controlled trials study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Choice of Anesthesia in Microelectrode Recording-guided Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery for Parkinson's Disease (CHAMPION): A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease is often performed under conscious sedation or general anesthesia. However, anesthetic agents may influence intraoperative microelectrode recording, and the optimal anesthesia method for microelectrode recording remains unclear. This study compared general anesthesia and conscious sedation in preserving microelectrode recording signal intensity during deep brain stimulation. METHODS: In this prospective, noninferiority randomized controlled trial, patients with Parkinson's disease (United Kingdom Brain Bank criteria) undergoing elective bilateral surgery were randomized 1:1 to the conscious sedation or the general anesthesia group. During surgery, a desflurane anesthetic titrated against the quality of the electrophysiologic signal was applied in the general anesthesia group, whereas patients in the conscious sedation group received dexmedetomidine anesthesia. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with high-quality microelectrode recording (normalized root mean square greater than 2.0), assessed postoperatively off-line. Secondary outcomes included operation and recording duration, 6-month clinical efficacy, and complication rates. RESULTS: Of 188 randomized patients (94 general anesthesia, 93 conscious sedation), desflurane anesthesia was noninferior for high normalized root mean square proportion (89.4% vs . 90.3%; difference, -0.96%; 95% CI, -9.62 to 7.70). The general anesthesia group had shorter operative time (difference, -9.07&#x2009;min; 95% CI, -13.99 to -4.14; P < 0.001). At 6 months, changes in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score (difference, -2.50; 95% CI, -7.20 to 2.20; P = 0.297), levodopa equivalent daily dose (difference, -58.4&#x2009;mg; 95% CI, -133.56 to 16.75; P = 0.128), and complication rates (general anesthesia: 10.9% vs . conscious sedation: 8.9%; P = 0.655) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: General anesthesia is noninferior to conscious sedation for microelectrode-guided subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation, providing equivalent signal intensity and clinical outcomes while improving procedural efficiency, supporting its use as a valid clinical option.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Intravenous lidocaine reduces the propofol EC50 for loss of consciousness and intraoperative anesthetic consumption in gynecological laparoscopy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine reduces propofol requirements and procedure-related adverse events. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to test whether intravenous lidocaine would reduce the effect-site concentration of propofol required to achieve loss of consciousness and decrease propofol consumption during total intravenous anesthesia in gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Sixty patients were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg&#xb7;kg-&#xb9; bolus) followed by continuous infusion or an equal volume of saline. Propofol was administered via target-controlled infusion starting at an effect-site concentration of 3.5 &#x3bc;g/mL. The concentration was then adjusted in steps of 0.5 &#x3bc;g/mLaccording to Dixon's up-and-down sequential method: decreased if loss of consciousness was achieved, or increased if not. Loss of consciousness was defined as loss of response to verbal commands. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol for inducing loss of consciousness was calculated using the Dixon's up-and-down method. General anesthesia was maintained with propofol and remifentanil, guided by state entropy (target 40-60) and surgical pleth index (target 20-50). Drug consumption was normalized to anesthesia duration and body weight. RESULTS: The estimated EC50 of propofol for inducing loss of consciousness was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the saline group (3.32 &#x3bc;g/mL, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 3.04-3.59 vs. 3.89 &#x3bc;g/mL, 95% CI: 3.50-4.28). Under the study protocol, the lidocaine group also required less propofol (8.62 mg&#xb7;kg-1&#xb7;h-1, 95% CI: 8.10-9.15 vs. 9.89 mg&#xb7;kg-1&#xb7;h-1, 95% CI: 9.05-10.73) and less remifentanil (0.23 &#x3bc;g&#xb7;kg-1&#xb7;min-1, 95% CI: 0.21-0.24 vs. 0.27 &#x3bc;g&#xb7;kg-1&#xb7;min-1, 95% CI: 0.24-0.30) compared with the saline group. CONCLUSION: Intravenous lidocaine reduced the propofol EC50 for Loss of Consciousness (LOC) and decreased intraoperative propofol and remifentanil consumptions in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy. These findings suggest a propofol- and opioid-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in this setting, although confirmation in larger multicenter trials is needed.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Esketamine vs. sufentanil for quality of recovery after outpatient gynecological surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative administration of esketamine has been reported to improve early quality of recovery (QoR). However, data on its effects in outpatient surgery are limited. This study aimed to assess the impact of esketamine on QoR in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological procedures. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients aged 18-65&#x2009;years scheduled for outpatient gynecological surgery under sedation were allocated to receive esketamine (0.2&#x2009;mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1&#x2009;&#x3bc;g/kg) combined with propofol (1.5-3&#x2009;mg/kg). The primary outcome was quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on POD2, sedation success rate, length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, injection pain, postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, patient and clinician satisfaction, sleep quality, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were randomized, with 63 assigned to the esketamine group and 63 to the sufentanil group. Of these, 125 patients were included in the final analysis (62 in the esketamine group and 63 in the sufentanil group), as one patient lacked follow-up data. The mean (SD) QoR-15 score on POD1 was 137.9 (14.5) in the esketamine group and 137.8 (10.7) in the sufentanil group, with no significant difference between groups (absolute difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 4.6; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.93). For secondary outcomes, the esketamine group had a longer PACU stay (median, 28.0 vs. 23.0&#x2009;min; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001), a lower incidence of severe injection pain (22.6% vs. 50.8%; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.002), a higher proportion of patients with pain scores &#x2265; 4 at 30&#x2009;min postoperatively (30.6% vs. 6.3%; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.001), and higher fatigue scores (median, 3.0 vs. 2.0; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.01). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing sedation for outpatient gynecological procedures, esketamine did not significantly improve quality of recovery on POD1 compared to sufentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500098466.

Humans↗