Quality of surgical field during endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic literature review of the effect of total intravenous compared to inhalational anesthesia

• Published in: International forum of allergy & rhinology 2013-06, Vol.3 (6), p.474-481
• Main Authors: Kelly, Elizabeth A., Gollapudy, Suneeta, Riess, Matthias L., Woehlck, Harvey J., Loehrl, Todd A., Poetker, David M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Intravenous - adverse effects; Anesthesia; Anesthesia, Inhalation - adverse effects; Anesthesia, Intravenous - adverse effects; anesthetic; Anesthetics; Drug therapy; endoscopic sinus surgery; endoscopy; Endoscopy - adverse effects; Endoscopy - methods; Humans; Literature reviews; Nasal Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Nasal Surgical Procedures - methods; Paranasal Sinuses - surgery; Surgery; surgical field; total intravenous anesthesia
• ISSN: 2042-6976; 2042-6984
• DOI: 10.1002/alr.21125

Background Adequate surgical field visualization is imperative for successful outcomes in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The type of anesthetic administered can alter a patient's hemodynamics and impact endoscopic visualization during surgery. We review the current evidence regarding the effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) compared to inhalational anesthesia (INA) on visualization of the surgical field during ESS. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed. Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1946 to January 2012. Citations from the primary search were reviewed and filtered to identify all relevant s in English. Articles meriting full review included prospective controlled trials enrolling adult patients undergoing ESS that were randomized to a group receiving INA or TIVA with outcome measures focused on surgical field visualization. Results Seven eligible trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. Four of the 7 demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in surgical field grade during ESS when receiving TIVA compared with INA. However, detailed INA concentrations were often not provided. High levels of INA may have been administered; therefore, side effects of INA rather than effects of an ideal INA administration were possibly represented. Analgesic administration also varied widely among the anesthetic groups, further complicating interpretation of study results. The lack of power and the heterogeneity of the studies precluded a formal meta‐analysis. Conclusion Although several studies reported that TIVA improves surgical conditions in ESS, there are significant limitations. These findings prevent any definite recommendation at this point, emphasizing the need for further high‐quality studies.