Research Article

Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures

Volume: 5 Number: 5 May 1, 2021
TR EN

Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures

Abstract

Background/Aim: Many studies have been performed on different fresh gas flows for general anesthesia. In this study, we aimed to compare the costs, airway, and endotracheal cuff pressures of different fresh flows (low, medium, high) of patients receiving general anesthesia in the prone position. Methods: A total of 150 ASA I-II patients over the age of 18 years who underwent lumbar vertebral surgery in prone position were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into three groups: Low-flow (n=50, fresh gas flow: 1 l/min), medium-flow (n=50, fresh gas flow: 2 l/min) and high-flow (n=50, fresh gas flow: 4 l/min). In addition to the preoperative heart rates, peripheral oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressures, endotracheal cuff pressures, airway peak and plateau pressures in the first 60 minutes (as 0th, 15th, 30th, 45th, 60th minutes) were noted, and the amount of inhaled gases (sevoflurane, oxygen, nitrogen protoxide) based on the data of the device were recorded to evaluate cost. Results: The two groups were similar in terms of hemodynamics, airway, and endotracheal cuff pressures. Regarding cost, there was a significant difference in the low-flow anesthesia group in terms of inhaled anesthetic agents, oxygen, and nitrogen protoxide. Conclusion: With modern anesthesia machines, it is unnecessary to avoid low-flow anesthesia applications. However, we recommend that the fresh gas flow be more than 2 l/min for anesthetists lacking experience or those who do not prefer low-flow anesthesia.

Keywords

References

  1. 1. Baker AB. Low flow and closed circuits. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1994;22:341-2. doi: 10.1177/0310057X9402200402.
  2. 2. Baum JA, Aitkenhead AR. Low-flow anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1995;50:37-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06189.x.
  3. 3. Vecil M, Di Stefano C, Zorzi F, Saltarini M, De Monte A. Low flow, minimal flow and closed circuit system inhalational anesthesia in modern clinical practice. Signa vitae. 2008;3:33-6.
  4. 4. Baum J. Niedrigflußnarkosen. Anaesthesist. 1994;43:194-210. doi: 10.1007/s001010050049.
  5. 5. Kılıç Y. A Reminder to Anesthesiologists: Low-Flow Anesthesia. J Clin Anal Med 2016;7:183-5.
  6. 6. Hendrickx JF, De Cooman S, Vandeput DM, Van Alphen J, Coddens J, Deloof T, et al. Air-oxygen mixtures in circle systems. J Clin Anesth 2001;13:461-4. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(01)00303-8.
  7. 7. Kennedy RR, Hendrickx JF, Feldman JM. There are no dragons: Low-flow anaesthesia with sevoflurane is safe. Anaesth Intensive Care 2019;47:223-5. doi: 10.1177/0310057X19843304.
  8. 8. McGain F, Bishop JR, Elliot-Jones LM, Story DA, Imberger GL. A survey of the choice of general anaesthetic agents in Australia and New Zealand. Anaesth Intensive Care 2019;47:235-41. doi: 10.1177/0310057X19836104.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Anaesthesiology

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

May 1, 2021

Submission Date

September 4, 2020

Acceptance Date

May 29, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 5 Number: 5

APA
Gültekin, A., Sahin, A., Yıldırım, İ., & Arar, C. (2021). Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures. Journal of Surgery and Medicine, 5(5), 467-471. https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.790635
AMA
1.Gültekin A, Sahin A, Yıldırım İ, Arar C. Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures. J Surg Med. 2021;5(5):467-471. doi:10.28982/josam.790635
Chicago
Gültekin, Ahmet, Ayhan Sahin, İlker Yıldırım, and Cavidan Arar. 2021. “Different Fresh Gas Flows in Prone Position under General Anesthesia: Comparison of Costs and Effects on Airway and Endotracheal Cuff Pressures”. Journal of Surgery and Medicine 5 (5): 467-71. https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.790635.
EndNote
Gültekin A, Sahin A, Yıldırım İ, Arar C (May 1, 2021) Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures. Journal of Surgery and Medicine 5 5 467–471.
IEEE
[1]A. Gültekin, A. Sahin, İ. Yıldırım, and C. Arar, “Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures”, J Surg Med, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 467–471, May 2021, doi: 10.28982/josam.790635.
ISNAD
Gültekin, Ahmet - Sahin, Ayhan - Yıldırım, İlker - Arar, Cavidan. “Different Fresh Gas Flows in Prone Position under General Anesthesia: Comparison of Costs and Effects on Airway and Endotracheal Cuff Pressures”. Journal of Surgery and Medicine 5/5 (May 1, 2021): 467-471. https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.790635.
JAMA
1.Gültekin A, Sahin A, Yıldırım İ, Arar C. Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures. J Surg Med. 2021;5:467–471.
MLA
Gültekin, Ahmet, et al. “Different Fresh Gas Flows in Prone Position under General Anesthesia: Comparison of Costs and Effects on Airway and Endotracheal Cuff Pressures”. Journal of Surgery and Medicine, vol. 5, no. 5, May 2021, pp. 467-71, doi:10.28982/josam.790635.
Vancouver
1.Ahmet Gültekin, Ayhan Sahin, İlker Yıldırım, Cavidan Arar. Different fresh gas flows in prone position under general anesthesia: comparison of costs and effects on airway and endotracheal cuff pressures. J Surg Med. 2021 May 1;5(5):467-71. doi:10.28982/josam.790635