Comparison of Methohexital and Propofol Use in Ambulatory Procedures in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

A Review of Sedation Agents

The oral and maxillofacial surgery model of anesthesia delivery is the subject of some controversy. However, a long track record of patient safety provides compelling support for the dual role of the oral and maxillofacial surgeon as proceduralist and anesthetist. Among the elements critical to continued success is a clear understanding of the pharmacology of the agents used to produce sedation and general anesthesia. This review highlights 6 sedation agents used as part of a balanced anesthesia technique in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Proceedings of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon's 2017 Clinical and Scientific Innovations in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (CSIOMS)

The sixth biennial Clinical and Scientific Innovations in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, formerly the Research Summit, of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons and its Committee on Research Planning and Technology Assessment was held in Rosemont, Illinois from April 28 to 30, 2017. The goal of the symposium is to provide a forum for the latest clinical and scientific advances to be brought to the specialty. It also nurtures collaboration and the development of relationships between oral and maxillofacial surgeons and researchers to bridge the gap between clinical and basic science. The goal is to improve the care of oral and maxillofacial surgical patients through the advancement of translational and clinical research.

Evaluation of methohexital as an alternative to propofol in a high volume outpatient pediatric sedation service

BACKGROUND

Propofol is a preferred agent for many pediatric sedation providers because of its rapid onset and short duration of action. It allows for quick turn around times and enhanced throughput. Occasionally, intravenous (IV) methohexital (MHX), an ultra-short acting barbiturate is utilized instead of propofol.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the experience with MHX in a primarily propofol driven outpatient sedation program and to see if it serves as an acceptable alternative when propofol is not the preferred pharmacologic option.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review from 2012 to 2015 of patients receiving IV MHX as their primary sedation agent. Data collected included demographics, reason for methohexital use, dosing, type of procedure, success rate, adverse events (AE), duration of the procedure, and time to discharge.

RESULTS

Methohexital was used in 240 patient encounters. Median age was 4years (IQR 2-7), 71.8% were male, and 80.4% were ASA-PS I or II. Indications for MHX use: egg+soy/peanut allergy in 93 (38.8%) and mitochondrial disorder 9 (3.8%). Median induction bolus was 2.1mg/kg (IQR, 1.9-2.8), median maintenance infusion was 4.5mg/kg/h (IQR, 3.0-6.0). Hiccups 15 (6.3%), secretions requiring intervention 14 (5.8%), and cough 12 (5.0%) were the most commonly occurring minor AEs. Airway obstruction was seen in 28 (11.6%). Overall success rate was 94%. Median time to discharge after procedure completion was 40.5min (IQR 28-57).

CONCLUSION

Methohexital can be used with a high success rate and AEs that are not inconsistent with propofol administration. Methohexital should be considered when propofol is not a preferred option.

Effects of level of consciousness on urodynamic procedure in female cats

Urodynamic evaluation is an invasive and uncomfortable procedure that can cause physical distress and is difficult to perform in uncooperative patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of consciousness on urodynamic evaluation in an animal model. Repeated cystometry, electromyogram, and measurement of serum cortisol concentrations were performed in female cats under conscious (CON), conscious sedation (CS) and deep anesthesia (DA) conditions. Urodynamic evaluation showed that there were no statistical differences in maximum detrusor pressure or bladder capacity observed among the three conditions. Under the DA condition, but not the CON and CS conditions, bladder contraction was accompanied by an un-relaxed anal sphincter. Residue urine volume significantly increased in the DA condition compared to the CON and CS conditions. The levels of serum cortisol significantly increased after performing urodynamic evaluation under the CON condition, whereas these levels were not significantly increased under the CS and DA conditions. This study showed that conscious sedation has no adverse effects on the urodynamic variables, and that it significantly reduces distress in cats undergoing the examination. These results may provide novel insights for performing urodynamic studies in uncooperative patients.