Jurnalul de Chirurgie
 Jurnalul de chirurgie
Aparitie trimestriala in a doua luna a trimestrului
Published quarterly in the second month of the quarter
ISSN: 1584 - 9341 Vol.10 Nr.3 - Iulie-Septembrie 2014 | sâmbătă, 16 februarie 2019
ISSN: 1584 - 9341 Vol.10 No.3 - July-September 2014
English
British Flag| Romana Romanian Flag
 
Creditare EMC
Colegiul Medicilor
Va invitam sa va inregistrati/abonati la Jurnalul de chirurgie pentru a beneficia de creditare EMC
User

Parola

Tine minte
Ti-ai uitat parola?
Syndicate

Advertisement

Elmed

Estima

Liamed

Listare E-mail

SEDATION TECHNIQUES IN AMBULATORY ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Otilia Boişteanu (*), Maria Voroneanu, Eugenia Popescu,
Violeta Trandafir, V. V. Costan
(*) PhD student, „Gr. T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iaşi
Clinic of Oral and Maxillafacial Surgery , St Spiridon University Hospital
„Gr. T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iaşi
Jurnalul de chirurgie 2011; 7 (3): 386-393
Full text:
Format PDF (Română/Romanian)

Abstract:

In ambulatory oral and maxillofacial surgery the use of sedation is a current practice. Sedation techniques are diverse, anesthetic agents may be administered intravenously or by inhalation, the recovery time and the clinical recovery time being different for each method used. The aim of the study was to show that the sedation techniques using fast-acting and briefly-lasting anesthetics are safe and efficient in ambulatory oral and maxillafacial surgery. It also compares the safety and the anesthetic results in case of two anesthetics (midazolam, propofol). The recovery time and the clinical recovery time are two important indicators in comparing various sedation techniques. Methods: 65 patients were analyzed and submitted to oral and maxillafacial surgery procedures to whom loco-regional anesthesia and intravenous sedation were administered. The patients were divided into two groups: group M (n=31), to whom midazolam was administered intravenously and group P (n=34) to whom propofol intravenously was administered. Results: The clinical recovery time was double compared to the clinical recovery time in the two studies groups, the recovery time and the clinical recovery time were different, being higher in case of midazolam. Conclusions: The both techniques are safe and efficient for ambulatory surgery, with short recovery time and clinical recovery time and enable the patient to be discharged safely.

KEY WORDS: SEDATION, OUTPATIENTS, MIDAZOLAM, PROPOFOL, RECOVERY TIME, CLINICAL RECOVERY TIME

Correspondence to: Otilia Boişteanu, MD, PhD student „Gr. T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iaşi, str. Independentei, no. 1, 700111, e-mail:



: Creative Commons License
Jurnalul de chirurgie [Journal of Surgery] by Editorial Board, Department of Surgery University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, E. Tarcoveanu, R. Moldovanu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.jurnaluldechirurgie.ro.