Comparison of propofol and methohexital for deep sedation

Christopher J. Meyers, Sidney B. Eisig, Richard A. Kraut

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations


The purpose of this investigation was to compare two sedation techniques for use in outpatient third molar surgery. Forty ASA class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, sublimaze (.007 mg/kg intravenous bolus), and midazolam (.5 mg/min) titrated to effect. Using an incremental bolus technique, group A then received methohexital, while group B received propofol. Both groups maintained stable mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, and end-tidal CO2 throughout the perioperative period. However, group A had a dramatic increase in heart rate (26.7% versus 13.9% for group B [P < .05]). Better postoperative psychomotor performance (P < .05) as measured by the Trieger Dot analysis was demonstrated by patients who received propofol. It was concluded that propofol is superior to methohexital for intravenous sedation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)449-452
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 1994

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Oral Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of propofol and methohexital for deep sedation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this