Hu CH, Chou WY. Improved Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores on first postoperative night achieved by propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(21): 7256-7264 [PMID: 36157991 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i21.7256]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Wen-Ying Chou, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor, Doctor, Department of Anesthesia, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, No. 138 Sheng-Li Road, Tainan 704, Taiwan. mauricecjhsu@hotmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Anesthesiology
Article-Type of This Article
Case Control Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Jul 26, 2022; 10(21): 7256-7264 Published online Jul 26, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i21.7256
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of patients in propofol anesthesia and sevoflurane anesthesia groups
Propofol group (n = 31)
Sevoflurane group (n = 30)
P
Height (cm)
158.6 (± 5.8)
159.3 (± 5.2)
0.62
Weight (kg)
59.6 (± 8.7)
65.1 (± 14.6)
0.08
Age (yr)
43.2 (± 5.9)
41.3 (± 6.9)
0.25
Operation time (min)
50.4 (± 12.6)
46.3 (± 9.7)
0.11
Anesthesia time (min)
65.9 (± 15.1)
62.5 (± 10.4)
0.16
Recovery time (min)
55.0 (± 3.7)
54.5 (± 4.0)
0.32
Adverse effect
Dizziness (patient)
1
2
Interval from discharge to sleep (min)
572.2 (± 151.4)
553.1 (± 138.6)
0.45
Table 2 Comparison of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores between two groups with display of each component by Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Propofol anesthesia (n = 31)
Sevoflurane anesthesia (n = 30)
P
Global PSQI score (before surgery)
4.9 ± 2.3
5.5 ± 3.2
0.38
Global PSQI score (after srugery)
3.3 ± 1.3
6.5 ± 2.8
< 0.001
P < 0.001
P = 0.02
Component 1
Subjective sleep quality (before)
2.3 ± 0.7
1.3 ± 0.7
Subjective sleep quality (after)
1.7 ± 0.4
1.5 ± 0.8
P < 0.001
P = 0.13
Component 2
Sleep latency (before)
0.5 ± 0.8
1.0 ± 1.1
Sleep latency (after)
0.2 ± 0.6
0.6 ± 0.9
P = 0.005
P = 0.03
Component 3
Sleep duration (before)
0.6 ± 0.6
1.1 ± 1.0
Sleep duration (after)
0.2 ± 0.4
1.2 ± 1.0
P = 0.001
P = 0.77
Component 4
Habitual sleep efficiency (before)
0.0 ± 0.2
0.4 ± 0.8
Habitual sleep efficiency (after)
0.0 ± 0.2
1.1 ± 1.2
P = 1.00
P = 0.01
Component 5
Sleep disturbances (before)
1.0 ± 0.0
0.8 ± 0.4
Sleep disturbances (after)
1.0 ± 0.0
1.0 ± 0.3
P = 1.00
P = 0.01
Component 6
Use of sleeping medication (before)
0.3 ± 0.8
0.1 ± 0.5
Use of sleeping medication (after)
0.0 ± 0.2
0.0 ± 0.0
P = 0.06
P = 0.32
Component 7
Daytime dysfunction (before)
1.0 ± 0.0
0.8 ± 0.4
Daytime dysfunction (after)
1.0 ± 0.0
1.1 ± 0.5
P = 1.00
P = 0.01
Table 3 Comparison of sleep latency and duration of patients after propofol anesthesia (n = 31) between preoperatively and postoperatively by paired t-test
Preoperative
Postoperative
95% confidence interval
P
Sleep latency (min)
15.6 ± 24.1
7.6 ± 27.6
2.5 to 13.7
0.006
Sleep duration (h)
7.2 ± 0.9
8.1 ± 1.2
-1.4 to -0.5
< 0.001
Table 4 Comparison of sleep latency, trouble staying awake, and enough enthusiasm for patients after sevoflurane anesthesia (n = 30) between preoperatively and postoperatively by paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Preoperative
Postoperative
95% confidence interval
P
Sleep latency (min)
25.4 ± 20.9
18.8 ± 16.1
-7.4 to 13.8
0.08
Trouble staying awake (sum of question scores)
0.1 ± 0.3
0.5 ± 0.6
-0.6 to -0.2
0.001
Enough enthusiasm (sum of question scores)
0.7 ± 0.4
1.4 ± 0.6
-0.9 to -0.4
< 0.001
Citation: Hu CH, Chou WY. Improved Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores on first postoperative night achieved by propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(21): 7256-7264