Get access

Systematic review and meta-analysis of total intravenous anesthesia and endoscopic sinus surgery

Authors

  • Adam S. DeConde MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
    • Correspondence to: Adam S. DeConde, MD, UCLA Department of Head and Neck Surgery, 62-132 CHS, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1624; e-mail: adeconde@gmail.com

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Christopher F. Thompson MD,

    1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Edward C. Wu MD,

    1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jeffrey D. Suh MD

    1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Potential conflict of interest: None provided.

  • Presented orally at the ARS Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meetings (COSM) on April 13, 2013, Orlando, FL.

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

Ancillary