INTRODUCTION:
Valerius Cordus synthesized diethyl ether in 1540 and shortly 
thereafter Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim 
(Paracelsus) noted that it could diminish pain. Priestley 
synthesized nitrous oxide in 1774, and in 1800, Davy found 
that it decreased pain and suggested its use for surgery. In the 
1820s, Hickman advanced the notion of anaesthesia, but Davy 
quashed Hickman's idea. Von Liebig synthesized chloroform 

(1)in 1831 . 

The recreational use of diethyl ether and nitrous oxide and a 
desire to eliminate the pain of surgery, initially led to 
unsuccessful (nitrous oxide) demonstrations or unreported 
use in patients undergoing surgery. Long's experience with 
ether in 1842 is as famous as his failure to publicize the 
discovery. 

Anesthesia was born on 16 Oct 1846 (Ether Day) with Morton's 
public demonstration of ether anesthesia. Simpson's 1847 
discovery of the anesthetic effects of chloroform followed. 
Nitrous oxide (restored to favor in the 1860s) and ether 
combined with oxygen provided anesthesia for a century, with 
modest competition in the 1930s to 1950s from divinyl ether, 

(2)(3) .cyclopropane and trichloroethylene 

World War II advances in uorine chemistry enabled 
development of compounds halogenated with uorine to 
eliminate ammability. The major advance was Suckling's 
synthesis of halothane in the early 1950s. Released for clinical 
use in the mid-1950s, halothane swept away its pungent, toxic, 
ammable predecessors, dominating anesthesia for more 
than a decade. 

Its use in newly developed vaporizers (Copper Kettle and 
Fluotec) allowed the precise control of anesthetic 
concentrations, contributing to its safety and popularity. World 
War II also gave birth to methods, particularly the infrared 
analyzer, to continuously analyze inhaled anesthetics. This 
facilitated the measurement of the Minimum Alveolar Conce 
ntration (MAC) required to eliminate movement in response to 

(2)noxious stimulation in 50 % of subjects, an anesthetic EC50 . 

Halothane was less than perfect. It caused a rare, immuno 

logically-based and potentially fatal hepatic injury. This 
spurred the synthesis of progressively less metabolized, less 
toxic, and less soluble (faster recovery) anesthetics. Enurane 
came rst, and displaced halothane. However, enurane 
could cause convulsions and in the 1980s, isourane, a 
compound less soluble and without convulsant properties, 
replaced enurane. The rise of ambulatory, day case surgery 
in the 1980s increased the demand for more rapid awakening 
from anesthesia, and the 1990s saw the release of the poorly 

(3),(4),(5)soluble anesthetics, sevourane and desurane . 

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
For this prospective, randomized, comparative study 40 
patients were randomly allocated by closed envelope method 
into two groups of 20 each in which group D receives 
Desurane and group S receives Sevourane. After approval 
from the ethical committee and written informed consent from 
patients, patients were randomized to the desurane or 
sevourane group.

Patients with clinically signicant cardiovascular, respiratory, 
hepatic, renal, neurologic, psychiatric, or metabolic disease 
were excluded from the study. Patients with a history of 
malignant hyperthermia and pregnant, possibly pregnant, or 
lactating women also were excluded.

Atropine, benzodiazepine, and similar drugs were not used as 
premedications before induction of anesthesia. Anaesthesia 
work station was checked. Appropriate size endotracheal 
tubes, working laryngoscope with medium and large size 
blades, stylet and working suction apparatus were kept ready 
before procedure. After shifting the patient to operating room, 
IV access was obtained with 18G IV cannula and ringer 
lactate started. 
 
All patients were preoxygenated with 100% oxygen for 3 
minutes before the induction of anaesthesia with  fentanyl 1.5 
to 2 μg/kg IV and propofol 2mg/kg IV and vecuronium 
0.1mg/kg IV. After loss of consciousness, patient were intu 
bated. Anaesthesia was maintained with either sevourane 
1% to 2% or desurane 3% to 6% in N2O:O2 at a ratio of 60:40. 
During the procedure, the patients were monitored by electro 

RECOVERY TIME OF DESFLURANE VERSUS SEVOFLURANE IN PATIENTS 
UNDERGOING GENERAL ANAESTHESIA

Original Research Paper

Dr. Omais Ali Beigh
Senior Resident, Department Of Anaesthesiology, SKIMS Medical college 
Bemina

  X 25GJRA - GLOBAL JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH ANALYSIS

Anaesthesiology

OBJECTIVES: To compare recovery time of desurane versus sevourane in patients undergoing 
general anaesthesia.

METHODOLOGY: 40 patients of age between 14-50 years, belonging to ASA grade I and II, scheduled for elective surgeries 
under general anaesthesia were included in the study. Patients belonging to ASA grade III and IV, those scheduled for 
emergency surgeries and patients with anticipated difcult airway were excluded from the study. The patients were randomised 
into two groups of 20 each, Group-S and Group-D. Patients in group-S received Sevourane as inhalation agent. Patients in 
group-D received Desurane as inhalation agent Recovery time which included time to verbal response, eye opening, name 
stating, nger sequencing, limb lift was assessed.
RESULTS: Comparison of the parameters of recovery time which included verbal response, eye opening, name stating, nger 
sequencing and limb lift between the two groups were higher in Sevourane group with a t value of between -22.899 and -19.808 
which is statistically signicant with a p value of <0.001. 
CONCLUSION: In comparison of both desurane and sevourane we found that there was early recovery with Desurane.

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS : 

VOLUME-9, ISSUE-2, FEBRUARY-2020 • PRINT ISSN No. 2277 - 8160 • DOI : 10.36106/gjra

Dr. Aatif  Nabi 
Shah*

Senior Resident, Department Of Anaesthesiology, Sheri Kashmir Institute 
Of Medical Sciences(SKIMS) Soura, J&K, India-190011. *Corresponding 
Author



26 X GJRA - GLOBAL JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH ANALYSIS

Ÿ Comparison of the Verbal Response(in sec) between the 
two groups shows that Verbal Response(in sec) is higher in 
Sevourane group with a t value of -22.166 and is 
statistically signicant with a p value of <0.001

Ÿ Comparison of the Eye Opening(in sec) between the two 
groups shows that Eye Opening(in sec) is higher in 
Sevourane group with a t value of -22.899 and is 
statistically signicant with a p value of <0.001

Ÿ Comparison of the Name Stating(in sec) between the two 
groups shows that Name Stating(in sec) is higher in 
Sevourane group with a t value of -20.442 and is 
statistically signicant with a p value of <0.001

Ÿ Comparison of the Finger Sequencing(in sec) between the 
two groups shows that Finger Sequencing(in sec) is higher 
in Sevourane group with a t value of -19.808 and is 
statistically signicant with a p value of <0.001

Ÿ Comparison of the Limb Lift(in sec) between the two 
groups shows that Limb Lift(in sec) is higher in Sevourane 
group with a t value of -20.831 and is statistically signif 
icant with a p value of <0.001

 
GRAPH 1

Graph1 we can see that,
Ÿ Comparison of the Verbal Response(in sec) between the 

two groups shows mean of 141secs in Desurane vs 327.75 
secs in Sevourane and is statistically signicant with a p 
value of <0.001

Ÿ Comparison of the Eye Opening(in sec) between the two 
groups shows mean of 178.75secs in Desurane vs 388.25 
secs in Sevourane and is statistically signicant with a p 

value of <0.001
Ÿ Comparison of the Name Stating(in sec) between the two 

groups shows mean of 261secs in Desurane vs 456.75secs 
in Sevourane and is statistically signicant with a p value 
of <0.001

Ÿ Comparison of the Finger Sequencing(in sec) between the 
two groups shows mean of 309.5secs in Desurane vs 
562.25secs in Sevourane and is statistically signicant 
with a p value of <0.001

Ÿ Comparison of the Limb Lift(in sec) between the two 
groups shows mean of 327.75secs in Desurane vs 
586.5secs in Sevourane and is statistically signicant 
with a p value of <0.001

DISCUSSION:  
In our study we compared the recovery time between the two 
groups which included the following parameters, 
1. Verbal response
2. Eye opening
3. Name stating
4. Finger sequencing
5. Limb lift

1.  Verbal response: Following desurane anaesthesia the 
ver bal response was 141.5 seconds as compared to 
327.75 seconds in sevourane group. This is a signicant 
difference in time both clinically as well as statistically. 
This can be attributed to the lower blood gas coefcient of 

(4) desurane as compared to sevourane . 
2.    Eye opening:   In patients receiving desurane anaesth e 

sia the time for eye opening was 178.75 seconds as 
compared to sevourane receiving patients which was 
more in duration at 388.25 seconds. This is clinically as 
well as statistically signicant difference in time. 
3.  Name stating:   Patients receiving desurane 
anaesthesia stated their names earlier at a mean of 261 
seconds as compared to patients receiving sevourane 
anaesthesia with a mean of 456.75 seconds. 

4.   Finger sequencing:   Mean time for nger sequencing was 
309.5 seconds in  desurane group as compared to 562.25 
seconds in sevourane group. This is a signicant 
difference clinically and statistically.

VOLUME-9, ISSUE-2, FEBRUARY-2020 • PRINT ISSN No. 2277 - 8160 • DOI : 10.36106/gjra

 GROUP N Mean Std. Deviation T df P VALUE

Verbal Response(in sec) Desurane 20 141.5 26.512 -22.17 38 <0.001

Sevourane 20 327.75 26.63

Eye Opening(in sec) Desurane 20 178.75 27.714 -22.9 38 <0.001

Sevourane 20 388.25 30.1

Name Stating(in sec) Desurane 20 261 32.265 -20.44 38 <0.001

Sevourane 20 456.75 28.157

Finger Sequencing(in sec) Desurane 20 309.5 29.015 -19.81 38 <0.001

Sevourane 20 562.25 49.137

Limb Lift(in sec) Desurane 20 327.75 26.63 -20.83 38 <0.001

Sevourane 20 586.5 48.75

TABLE 8: INDEPENDENT T TEST: COMPARISON OF THE DURATIONS

cardiography, pulse oxymetry, and noninvasive arterial blood 
pressure measurement. Volatile concentrations of sevourane 
and desurane were determined using a multigas analyzer. 
Sevourane was administered using Ohmeda Sevotec-5 and 
desurane was administered using Drager D Vapourizer. The 
inspired concentration of the volatile anesthetic was adjusted 
to maintain mean arterial pressure within 20% of baseline 
values. 

During the maintenance period, ventilation was controlled to 
maintain normocarbia with a fresh gas ow (4.0 L/min) using 
a semiclosed circular system. Muscle relaxation was maint 
ained by incremental doses of vecuronium. Fluid was admin 
istered at a rate of 10 to 15 ml/kg/hr.At the end of surgery, 
inhaled anaesthetics were discontinued. The lungs were 
ventilated with 100% oxygen at a fresh gas ow rate of 8 L/min. 

Residual neuromuscular blockade reversed with Inj. Neosti 
gmine 0.05 mg/kg and Inj. glycopyrrolate 0.01 mg/kg.

Emergence quality was measured from the time of termination 
of anaesthetic gas.

PARAMETERS EVALUATED:
Recovery time which included time to verbal response, eye 
opening, name stating, nger sequencing and limb lift. 

RESULTS:
40 patients randomly divided into two groups with 20 patients 
in Group D (Desurane) and 20patients in Group S (Sevo 
urane) scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia was 
undertaken to assess the recovery time of the two volatile 
anaesthetic agents.



5. Limb lift:   Return of muscle power can be assessed by 
limb lift. In our study patients in desurane group lifted 
their limbs earlier at 327.75 seconds as compared to 
sevourane group at 586.5 seconds.

The pharmacokinetic properties of desurane and sevo ur 
ane favour better intraoperative control of anaesthesia and a 

(6),(7),(8)rapid postoperative recovery . They have signicantly 
lower blood/gas partition coefcients (0.45 and 0.65 respe ctiv 
ely) than Isourane (1.4) or halothane (2.4). The lower 
fat/blood partition coefcient of desurane, 27 v/s 48 for 
sevourane, should favour its early elimination from the body 

(8),(9),(10)resulting in early recovery .

REFERENCES:
1. Robert K. Stoelting, Simon C. Hiller; Pharmacology & physiology in 

Anaesthetic Practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Fourth edition. Inhaled 
2006, Page 41-42Anesthetics.  

2. Kent CD and domino KB. Depth of anaesthesia. Current opinion in 
Anaesthesiology 2009, 22:782-787    

3. Robert K. Stoelting, Simon C. Hiller; Pharmacology & Physiology in 
Anesthetic Practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Fourth edition 2006, Page 
no: 62-63

4. Eger EI. Desurane (Suprane): a compendium and reference. Nutley, 
NJ:Anaquest, 1993,1-119.

5. Weiskopf R., Cahalan M., Eger E. I., Yasuda N., Rampil I., Onescu P., Lockhart 
S., Johnson B., Friere B., and Kelley, S. Cardiovascular actions of desurane in 
normocarbic volunteers. Anesth. Analg1991, 73:143-156.

6. Ebert T. and Muzi M. Sympathetic hyperactivity during desurane anesthesia 
in healthy volunteers: A comparison with isourane. Anesthesiology 
1993,79:444-453. 

7. Cahalan MK. Haemodynamic  effects of inhaled anesthetics.Cl evelan d:In 
ternational Anesthesia Research Society,1996:14-18.

8. Caldwell J., Laster M., Magorian T., Heier T., Yasuda N., Lynam D., Eger E. I., 
and Weiskopf R. The neuromuscular effects of desurane, alone and 
combined with pancuronium  or succinylcholine in humans. Anesthesiology 
1991,74:412-418. 

9. Rampil I., Lockhart S., Eger E. I., Yasuda N., Weiskopf R., and Cahalan M. The 
electroen- cephalographic effects of desurane  in humans. Anesthesiology 
1991,74:434-439.

10. Lutz L., Milde J., and Milde L. The cerebral functional, metabolic, and 
hemodynamic effects of desurane in dogs. Anesthesiology 1990, 73:125-131.

  X 27GJRA - GLOBAL JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH ANALYSIS

VOLUME-9, ISSUE-2, FEBRUARY-2020 • PRINT ISSN No. 2277 - 8160 • DOI : 10.36106/gjra