Main Article Content

Dr. Balwinderjit Singh
Dr. Ashok Sehgal
Dr. Jagjiwan Singh
Dr. Rajvinder Singh



Background: - In present times many anal and perianal surgeries of shorter duration are preferably performed on day care basis leading to decrease in hospital stay and financial burden on patient. We conducted randomized clinical study to compare propofol and etomidate for general anaesthesia in ambulatory anal and perianal surgeries.

Methods: - 60 adult patients of age groups (18-60 years) ASA grade I and II posted for anal and perianal surgeries of 25-30 minutes duration were randomly divided into two groups. Group I (E) n=30 patients received etomidate as bolus dose of 0.1mg/kg IV followed by 0.05mg/kg every 4 minutes and in Group II (P) n=30 patients propofol as bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg IV followed by 0.5mg/kg IV every 4-5 minutes as induction agent till completion of surgery. Hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR) Variations and oxygen saturation were recorded at various time intervals. Clinical characteristics like pain at injection site, any adverse effects like incidence of myoclonus, nausea & vomiting, anaphylaxis were also recorded.


Results: - The two groups were statistically comparable regarding demographic characteristics and duration of surgery. Systemic SBP, DBP& HR were significantly decreased in propofol groups as compared to etomidate group. There was statistical no significant difference between clinical variables (recovery time and patient satisfaction) between two groups. However pain at injection site and incidence of respiratory depression was statistically significant between two groups. Regarding incidence of anaphylaxis, nausea, vomiting, myoclonus difference between two groups were statistically non-significant. However, incidence of myoclonus was in etomidate group.but was antagonized by premedication with inj. fentanyl or midazolam.


Conclusion: - We conclude that etomidate can be better alternative to propofol due to minimum local side effects like pain on injection, less incidence of PONV where variation of hemodynamic parameters are of concern especially in patients having medical co-morbidities in shorter duration day care surgeries.

Limitation of our study is that we have not taken into account incidence of thrombophlebitis, further study is also needed to establish the safety of patients with etomidate in poor left ventricle function, hypotension and shock.

Abstract 127 | pdf Downloads 43


1. Paez A., Redondo E., Linares A., Rios E, Vallejo J. and Sanchez-Castilla M.2007. Adverse events and readmissions after day –case urological surgery> Int Braz J Urol.33:330+338.
2. Patel H., Ball M., Cohen J., Kates M., Pierorazio P. and Allf M.2015. Morbidity if Urological Surgical Procedures: An Analysis of Risk Factors and Outcomes for Eighteen Index Procedures Urol 85: 552-560.
3. Cockcroft JO., Berry CB.,McGrathJS.andDaughterty MO.2015. Anesthesia for majorurologic surgery. Anethesiol. Clin.33:165-172.
4. Erdoes G. Basciani R., Eberle B. 2014. Etomidate- a review of robust evidence for its use invarious clinical scenarios. Acta Anaethesiol, Scand. 58:380-389.
5. Shen X-C., Ao X., Cao Y., Lan L., Liu X-M. and Sun W-J et al. 2015. Etomidate-remifentanil is more suitable for monitored anesthesia care during gastroscopy in older patients than propofol –remifentanil. Med. Sci. Monit.,21:1-8,2015.
6. Nyman Y, VonHofsten K, palm C, Eksborg S, Lonnqvist PA 2006. EtomidateLipuro is Associated with considerably less injection pain in children compared with propofol with added lidocaine. Br J Anaesthes.Aug 16;97(4):536-9.
7. FatmaSaricaoglu, SennurUzunOguzhanArun, Fundaarun ,UlkaAypar: 2011 clinical comparison of etomidatelipuro,propofol and admixture at induction :Saudi J anaesthesia 5;(1):62-66.
8. Steward DJ 1975.A simplified scoring system for the post-operative recovery room. CanadianAnaesthesia’ Soc J.Jan 1;22 (1):111-3.
9. Skinner HJ,Biswas A ,Mahajan RP 1998.Evaluation of intubating conditions with rocuronium and etomidate for rapid sequence induction.Anaesthesia;53(7):702-10.
10. Kaushal RP, Vatal A, Pathak R 2015. Effect of etomidate and propofol induction on hemodynamic and endocrine response in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting/mitral value and aortic value replacement surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Cardiac Anaesthes. Apr;18(2):172.
11. Masoudifar M, Beheshtian E 2013. Comparison of cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation after induction of anesthesia by propofol and Etomidate.J Res Med Sci:18(10):870-4.
12. Altmayer P, Grundmann U, Ziehmar M, Larsen R 1993. Comparative study on bioavailability and side effects of a new galenic formulation of etomidate. AnasthesiolIntensivmedizinNotfallmedizinSchmerztherapie.Jan 1;28 (7):415-9.
13. Mayer M,Doenicke A, Nebauer AE, Hepting L 1996. Propofol and etomidate-Lipuro for induction of general anesthesia. Hemodynamics, vascular Compatibility, subjective Findings and postoperative nausea. Anaesthesia ;45(11):1082-4.
14. Hosseinzadeh H, Golzari SE, Torabi E, Dehdilani M 2013. (2013):Comparing three methods of induction of anaesthesia (propofol, etomidate, propofol+etomidate) in the hemodynamic stability after laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion in elective surgeries”. Journal of cardiovascularthoracic research;5(3):109-12.
15. Kelsake E, Karakaya D, Sarihasan B, Baris S 2006. Remifentanil pre-treatment reducesmyoclonus after etomidate . J ClinAnesth;18(2):83-6.
16. Schwarzkopf KR, Hueter L, Simon M, Fritz HG 2003.Midazolam pre-treatment reducesetomidate-induced myoclonic movements. Anaesth Intensive Care. Feb;31(1):18-20.
17. Isitemiz I, Uzman S, Toptas M, Vahapoglu A, Gul YG, InalFY ,Akkoc I 2014. Prevention of etomidate-induced myoclonus: Which is superior: Fentanyl, midazolam, or a combination? A retrospective comparative study. Med Sci Monitor: Int Med J Experiment ClinRes; 20:262.
18. St Pierre M, Dunkel M, Rutherford A, Hering W 2000. Does etomidate increase postoperative nausea? A double-blind controlled comparison of etomidate in lipid emulsion with propofol for balanced anaesthesia. Eur J anaesthesiol.Oct; 17 (10):634-41.