An observational study in Anesthesia, Sevoflurane and Monitoring, sponsored by Sakarya University. Completed at 2 sites in Turkey. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-08-25.
Sponsored by Sakarya University · Observational
With the introduction of technology into our lives, we come across two different anesthesia management modules in anesthesia machines. The first of these is the traditional method, the manual controlled anesthesia technique; the other is the automatic controlled anesthesia technique. In our daily practice, both anesthesia techniques can be used in patients who have undergone general anesthesia. These two techniques can be used in both high-flow anesthesia and low-flow anesthesia applications.
In the manual technique, the inspired and exhaled gas concentrations are regulated by the anesthetists manually by the fresh gas flow during general anaesthesia. When administered manually, low-flow anesthesia requires the attention and time of the anesthesiologist, especially the difference between the gas concentrations set in the anesthesia machine and the respiratory system, and the delay between changes in fresh gas concentrations and the end tidal fraction (EtAA) of the anesthetic agent. The most important risks of manually controlled low-flow anesthesia are hypoxia and awareness that may occur due to low doses of inhaler anesthetic agents.
In the automatic controlled anesthesia technique, it is a method in which the values desired by the anesthetists during general anesthesia are determined at the beginning of anesthesia and automatically adjusted by the anesthesia device without any additional intervention. After intubation, anesthetists set 3 parameters on the anesthesia device: inspiratory or expiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2- End tidal O2 concentration), anesthetic agent concentration (MAC or End-tidal Anesthetic agent concentration) and fresh gas flow amount. With this method, it is aimed to provide safer and more stable anesthesia. In addition, it has been stated in many previous studies that automatic control anesthesia technique reduces anesthetic gas consumption and less anesthesiologist intervention is needed to reach target values.
In our study, we aimed to compare the safety, efficiency and cost aspects of automatic controlled anesthesia and manual control methods in achieving intraoperative target anesthetic and oxygen concentrations. We hypothesized that anesthesia applied with the end-tidal control method would have a lower cost, less workload, and similar anesthetic depth with the manual control method.
Sakarya University is the lead sponsor of 176 studies on the registry; 47 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients scheduled for elective gynecological operation under general anesthesia will be included in the study.
Exclusion Criteria:
❖ BMI >30
ET-AA
searching the time needed to reach the target end tidal anesthetic agent (ET-AA) concentration and the amount of anesthetic agent consumption
Time frame: 10 minutes
target values
number of adjustments required to stay within target values and hemodynamic stability
Time frame: 4 hours
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Sakarya University