Supplementary Files

Conscious sedation in Spinal Anaesthesia : A comparative study of Propofol versus Midazolam

How to Cite



OBJECTIVE: To determine the advantages of conscious sedation in spinal anesthesia by comparing Propofol with Midazolam.

METHODS: The study was carried out on 60 patients undergoing various elective surgical procedures under spinal anesthesia. The patients were divided into three groups each containing 20 patients. Group A (n=20) received initial bolus of 30 mg of Propofol intravenously (IV) followed by 10 mg top ups on as-required basis. Group B (n=20) received initial bolus of 2 mg of Midazolam followed by 1 mg increments to maintain the conscious sedation. Group C (n=20) did not receive any conscious sedation (Control). The patients were interviewed through a structured questionnaire before anesthesia and 24 hours after the surgical proce­dure. Demographic variables were scored using descriptive statistics and results were analyzed using correlation methods.

RESULTS: It was revealed that in patients who were given conscious sedation, 17 patients (85%) from Midazolam group as compared to 12 patients (60%) from Propofol group were not willing to have remained wide awake during the procedure. Similarly 15 patients (75%) from Midazolam group as compared to 10 patients (50%) from Propofol group were very much comfortable being asleep during the procedure. Ten patients (50%) from the group who were not given conscious sedation remained apprehensive and uncomfortable and they very much desired to be sedated during the procedure.

CONCLUSION: Conscious sedation was very effective in spinal anes­thesia in alleviating preoperative anxiety and apprehension. Midazolam proved to be a better agent than Propofol for the purpose.  


Conscious sedation (MeSH), Spinal anesthesia (MeSH), Propofol (MeSH), Midazolam (MeSH).




Kroczak TJ, Kaler KS, Patel P, Al-Essawi T. Ureteroscopy with conscious sedation for distal ureteric calculi: 10-year experience. Can Urol Assoc J 2016 Jan-Feb;10(1- 2):e12-e26.

Ghimire A, Bhattarai B, Rahman TR, Singh SN, Koirala S, Tripathi M. Propofol sedation during spinal anesthesia- a dose finding study. Kathmandu Univ Med J 2011 Jul-Sep;9(35):170-3.

De Berti G, Maggi M, Conigliaro R, Levrini G, Salzano S, Ghadirpour R, et al. Adminis¬tration of conscious sedation by a neurora¬diology team during percutaneous verte¬broplasty and spinal biopsy procedures. Neuroradiology 2012 Mar;54(3):231-7.

Ekin A, Donmez F, Taspinar V, Dikmen B. Patient-controlled sedation in orthopedic surgery under regional anesthesia: a new approach in procedural sedation. Braz J Anesthesiol 2013 Sep-Oct;63(5): 410-4. doi: 10.1016/j.bjan.2012.07.012.

Johnston DF, Stafford M, McKinney M, Deyermond R, Dane K. Peripheral nerve blocks with sedation using propofol and alfentanil target-controlled infusion for hip fracture surgery: a review of 6 years in use. J Clin Anesth 2016 Mar;29:33-9.

Kim GH, Lee JJ, Choi SJ, Shin BS, Lee AR, Lee SH, et al. Clinical predictors of ap¬noea-hypopnoea during propofol sedation in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2012 Jul;67(7):755-9.

Lee JS, Kim JS, Kim MK, Kim SH, Kim JY. Intrathecal fentanyl decreases the opti¬mal effect site concentration of propofol during spinal anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesi¬ol Scand 2014 May;58(5):597-603.

Özkan D, Akkaya T, Yalcindag A, Hanci T, Gönen E, Gümüs H, et al. Propofol seda¬tion in total knee replacement: effects on oxidative stress and ischemia-reperfusion damage. Anaesthesist 2013 Jul;62(7):537- 42.

Smith SB, Carr S, Psikula S, Das A, Grichnik K. A pilot study on the effect of nasal con¬tinuous positive airway pressure on arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide during spinal anesthesia with intravenous sedation for total knee arthroplasty. Anesth Analg 2015 Feb;120(2):479-83.

Danielak-Nowak M, Musioł E, Arct-Dan¬ielak D, Duda I, Ludwik K. A comparison of subhypnotic doses of propofol and midazolam during spinal anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2016;48(1):13-8.

Uzman S, Gurbulak B, Gurbulak EK, Don¬mez T, Hut A, Yildirim D. A comparison of propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation in upper gastrointestinal endos¬copy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2016;11(3):178-85.

Tobias JD, Leder M. Procedural sedation: A review of sedative agents, monitoring, and management of complications. Saudi J Anaesth 2011 Oct-Dec; 5(4): 395–410. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.8727

Elvir Lazo OL, White PF, Tang J, Yumul R, Cao X, Yumul F, et al. Propofol ver¬sus midazolam for premedication: a placebo controlled, randomized double blinded study. Minerva Anestesiol 2016 Nov;82(11):1170-9.

Bagchi D, Mandal MC, Basu SR. Arous¬al time from sedation during spinal anaesthesia for elective infraumbilical surgeries: Comparison between propofol and midazolam. Indian J Anaesth 2014 Jul;58(4):403-9.

McQuaid KR, Laine L. A systematic re¬view and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastroin¬test Endosc 2008;67(6):910–23.

Koshy G, Nair S, Norkus EP, Hertan HI, Pitchumoni CS. Propofol versus midazol¬am and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95(6):1476–9.

Grendelmeier P, Tamm M, Jahn K, Pflimlin E, Stolz D. Propofol versus midazolam in medical thoracoscopy: a random¬ized, noninferiority trial. Respiration 2014;88(2):126-36.

Lordan JT, Woods J, Keeling P, Paterson IM. A retrospective analysis of benzodi¬azepine sedation vs. propofol anaesthesia in 252 patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. HPB (Oxford) 2011 Mar;13(3):174-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00266.x

Vargo JJ, Zuccaro G, Dumot JA, Morrow JB, Conwell DL, Trolli PA, et al. Gas¬troenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: A prospec¬tive, randomized trial. Gastroenterol 2002;123(1):8–16.

Sharan R, Mohan B, Kaur H, Bala A. Effica¬cy and safety of propofol versus midazolam in fiberoptic endotracheal intubation. Anesth Essays Res 2016 Sep;10(3):437-45.

Work published in KMUJ is licensed under a

 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.

Creative Commons License

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.