Total intravenous versus inhalational anesthesia in endoscopic sinus surgery: A meta‐analysis. (3rd May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lu, Victor M.; Phan, Kevin; Oh, Lawrence J.
• Is Part Of: Laryngoscope. Volume 130:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 575
• Page End: 583
• Publication Date: 2019-05-03
• Subjects: Endoscopic sinus surgery -- total intravenous -- TIVA -- inhalational -- IA -- surgical field -- visibility; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51005
• DOI: 10.1002/lary.28046
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0023-852X

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Achieving optimal intraoperative surgical field visibility and minimizing blood loss are two important parameters in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The aim of this meta‐analysis was to compare two total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia (IA) to determine if either conferred superior outcomes of these and other parameters based on randomized control trials (RCTs) only. Methods: The recommended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines were followed, and searches of electronic databases from inception to September 2018 identified 157 articles for screening. Data were extracted and analyzed using meta‐analysis of proportions. Results: In total, we identified 15 RCTs that satisfied our selection criteria. There were 828 ESS cases described, with 391 (47%) and 437 (53%) being managed by TIVA and IA, respectively. Pooled analysis demonstrated significantly superior visibility scores for TIVA compared to IA based on 10‐point grading scores ( P = 0.049, visual analog scale; P = 0.009, Wormald scale) and 5‐point grading scores ( P = 0.002, Boezaart scale). Blood loss was significantly less following TIVA ( P = 0.003), with no significant difference in intraoperative heart rate ( P = 0.70) or mean arterial pressure ( P = 0.96). Additionally, duration of surgery ( P = 0.16) and anesthesia ( P = 0.39) were comparable between the two approaches. Conclusion: This meta‐analysis indicates that TIVA has the potential to confer superior surgical field visibility and reduce intraoperative blood loss compared to IA in ESS. Currently, there are significant heterogeneity concerns in this meta‐analysis, which temper any expectations that either approach is absolutely superior to the other. Caution should be exercised when interpreting these results until further validation can be achieved. Level of Evidence: 1A Laryngoscope, 130:575–583, 2020