Following approval by the Hospital Ethics Committee of Magrabi Center, Doha, Qatar, in June 2017, 84 patients with ASA class I or II aged 3 - 11 years scheduled for strabismus surgery were enrolled in this randomized, prospective, double-blinded study from October 2018 to January 2020. Written consent was taken from participants’ parents or their legal guardians. Children with physical developmental delay, pre-existing neurological disorders, history of allergy to used medications, and cardiac disorders were excluded from the current study. All patients were fasting for eight hours for food, and four hours for clear fluids before surgery.
Basic monitoring was applied, including pulse oximetry, non-invasive blood pressure, temperature probe, electrocardiogram, and inspiratory and expiratory gas concentration. No premedication was given. Anesthesia in all groups was induced using face masks with sevoflurane (8%) in oxygen. An intravenous cannula was inserted immediately after mask induction. Then, IV glycopyrrolate 5 µg.kg-1 was given to all patients, followed by the insertion of laryngeal mask airway (LMA).
Subjects were randomized into one of the two groups receiving either sevoflurane and DEX (1 mcg.kg-1) using syringe pumps over 10 minutes (group I, n = 42) or TIVA with propofol (4 mg.kg-1 h-1) and remifentanil infusion (0.03 mcg.kg-1 min-1) and a mixture of oxygen in the air (group II, n = 42) in a double-blinded fashion obtained by random number generation.
Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and pulse oximetry (SpO2) were monitored just before induction as a baseline, at induction, and every 10 minutes during the surgery. Supplementary fentanyl 0.5 mcg.kg-1 was given intravenously if tachycardia or hypertension occurred. Furthermore, intravenous atropine 0.01 mg.kg-1 was given to treat bradycardia, and 10 ml.kg-1 normal saline solution was administered to treat hypotension. Ondansetron 0.1 mg.kg-1 was given as a rescue medicine for PONV. At the end of the surgery, LMA was removed while the patients were deeply anesthetized. Then, they were brought to the postanesthetic care unit (PACU).
In the PACU, children were received by a research nurse who recorded the post-anesthesia outcome variables including ED, postoperative pain, recovery time, the need for rescue analgesics, satisfaction level of parents, and PONV. The time between the arrival of the patient to the PACU and reaching an Aldrete score of ≥ 9 was defined as recovery time. The Aldrete score is a scoring system used for the clinical evaluation of patients recovering from general anesthesia. It consists of five main items (activity, circulation, consciousness, O2 saturation, and respiration). Each item is given a score of 0 - 2 with a maximum score of 10.
We monitored the postoperative pain using the face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability scale (FLACC). Each item is given a score of 0 - 2 with a maximum score of 10. It was started once the patient was able to do a purposeful movement. Paracetamol 15 mg.kg
-1 was given to all children for pain relief in the PACU. Then, ED was assessed using the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale, which consists of five main items (
Table 1). We asked the parents to grade their levels of satisfaction with the recovery of their children from 0-10 where 0 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied.
| Item | Score |
|---|
| The child makes eye contact with the caregiver; The child’s actions are purposeful; The child is aware of his/her surroundings | Not at all (4); Just a little (3); Quite a bit (2); Very much (1); Extremely (0) |
| The child is restless; The child is inconsolable | Extremely (0); Very much (1); Quite a bit (2); Just a little (3); Not at all (4); Extremely (0) |
3.1. Statistical Analysis
A sample size of 42 patients in each group was adequate to obtain an 80% power to detect a significance level (P < 0.05). The IBM SPSS program for Windows (version 25) was used to do statistical analysis. Continuous variables were presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) and analysis was done using student’s t-test. We used the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison between non-normally distributed variables. On the other hand, we used the chi-square test to compare qualitative data. We considered P values of less than 0.05 in any test as statistically significant.