Potential conflict of interest: None provided.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery
Article first published online: 10 JUL 2013
© 2013 ARS-AAOA, LLC
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
Volume 3, Issue 10, pages 848–854, October 2013
How to Cite
How to Cite this Article: Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol, 2013;3:848–854., , , .
Presented orally at the ARS Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meetings (COSM) on April 13, 2013, Orlando, FL.
- Issue published online: 15 OCT 2013
- Article first published online: 10 JUL 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 28 MAY 2013
- Manuscript Revised: 9 MAY 2013
- Manuscript Received: 11 MAR 2013
- systematic review;
- endoscopic sinus surgery;
- total intravenous anesthesia;
- inhalational anesthesia;
- chronic rhinosinusitis
Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been shown in some studies to impact visual field, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters during endoscopic sinus surgery when compared to inhalational anesthesia (IA). These variables are critical in endoscopic sinus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to discern the impact of TIVA vs IA in endoscopic sinus surgery.
MEDLINE (1950 to October 20, 2012) was searched using a search strategy designed to include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that discussed TIVA, IA, and endoscopic sinus surgery. An abstract search was then used to identify RCTs directly comparing TIVA and IA in endoscopic sinus surgery. All articles selected then underwent full-text review. Data on visual field scores, blood loss, and cardiovascular parameters was then extracted, compared, and analyzed.
There were 42 articles identified by the search strategy. Full-text review identified 9 articles that met eligibility criteria and contained extractable data. Although inconsistently reported, preoperative characteristics (Lund-Mackay scores and history of nasal polyps) were similar (p > 0.05) between the 2 groups. No difference was found between heart rate, mean arterial pressure, anesthesia time, operative time, or estimated blood loss. Only 7 studies reported a visibility score, but overall favored the TIVA group (p < 0.001).
Current evidence supporting TIVA is limited to a handful of inconsistently controlled and reported studies. Standardized grading of visibility scores and preoperative characteristics would better establish the role of TIVA in endoscopic sinus surgery.