OBJECTIVE: General anesthesia in obese patients is both challenging and demanding. With the rates of obesity in the general population increasing, more patients undergo bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the performance, effectiveness and recovery fromanesthesia of sevoflurane and propofol in combination with remifentanil, with and without bispectral index (BIS) monitoring in super obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled study a total of 100 super obese patients (body mass index, BMI > 50 kg/m2) undergoing bariatric surgery were randomly allocated in four groups: a sevoflurane group (n = 25), a sevoflurane with BIS monitoring group (n = 25), a propofol group (n=25) and a propofol with BIS monitoring group (n=25). Hemodynamic parameters, depth ofanesthesia, recovery from anesthesia and postoperative pain were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 37.7 ± 9.2 years and the median BMI was 57.86 ± 9.33. There were no statistically significant differences between the four groups with respect to patient characteristics, comorbidities and duration of surgery. The intraoperatively mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in both propofol groups. No significant difference was observed between the four groups in respect to heart rate changes during anesthesia. Although the time to eye-opening and extubation was significantly shorter in both propofol groups, recovery from anesthesia, assessed with the Aldrete, Chung and White recovery scores, was significantly faster in sevoflurane groups. No significant difference was observed in postoperative pain between the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although both propofol and sevoflurane provide adequate general anesthesia, sevoflurane may be preferable in super obese patients because of superior hemodynamic stability and faster recovery from anesthesia.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2014 Dec 18;14:125. doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-14-125. eCollection 2014.
BACKGROUND: In the field of anesthesia for bariatric surgery, a wide variety of recommendations exist, but a general consensus on the perioperative management of such patients is missing. We outline the perioperative experiences that we gained in the first two years after introducing a bariatric program. METHODS: The perioperative approach was established together with all relevant disciplines. Pertinent topics for the anesthesiologists were; successful airway management, indications for more invasive monitoring, and the planning of the postoperative period and deposition. This retrospective analysis was approved by the local ethics committee. Data are mean [SD]. RESULTS: 182 bariatric surgical procedures were performed (147 gastric bypass procedures (GBP; 146 (99.3%) performed laparascopically). GBP patients were 43  years old, 78% female, BMI 45  kg/m(2), 73% ASA physical status of 2. 42 patients (28.6%) presented with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. 117 GBP (79.6%) patients were intubated conventionally by direct laryngoscopy (one converted to fiber-optic intubation, one aspiration of gastric contents). 32 patients (21.8%) required an arterial line, 10 patients (6.8%) a central venous line. Induction lasted 25  min, the procedure itself 138  min. No blood products were required. Two patients (1.4%) presented with hypothermia (<35 °C) at the end of their case. The emergence period lasted 17  min. Postoperatively, 32 patients (21.8%) were transferred to the ICU (one ventilated). The other patients spent 4.1 [0.7] h in the post anesthesia care unit. 15 patients (10.2%) required take backs for surgical revision (two laparotomies). CONCLUSIONS: The physiology and anatomy of bariatric patients demand a tailored approach from both the anesthesiologist and the perioperative team. The interaction of a multi-disciplinary team is key to achieving good outcomes and a low rate of complications.