Loading…

Analysis of anesthesia-controlled operating room time after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared with desflurane anesthesia in functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Anesthesia technique may contribute to the improvement of operation room (OR) efficiency by reducing anesthesia-controlled time. We compared the difference between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) underg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medicine (Baltimore) 2018-02, Vol.97 (5), p.e9805-e9805
Main Authors: Liu, Tien-Chien, Lai, Hou-Chuan, Lu, Chueng-He, Huang, Yuan-Shiou, Hung, Nan-Kai, Cherng, Chen-Hwan, Wu, Zhi-Fu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Anesthesia technique may contribute to the improvement of operation room (OR) efficiency by reducing anesthesia-controlled time. We compared the difference between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) undergoing general anesthesiaWe performed a retrospective study using data collected in our hospital to compare the anesthesia-controlled time of FESS using either TIVA via target-controlled infusion with propofol/fentanyl or DES/fentanyl-based anesthesia between January 2010 and December 2011. The various time intervals (surgical time, anesthesia time, extubation time, total OR stay time, post anesthesia care unit [PACU] stay time) and the percentage of prolonged extubation were compared between the 2 anesthetic techniques.We included data from 717 patients, with 305 patients receiving TIVA and 412 patients receiving DES. An emergence time >15 minutes is defined as prolonged extubation. The extubation time was faster (8.8 [3.5] vs. 9.6 [4.0] minutes; P = .03), and the percentage of prolonged extubation was lower (7.5% vs. 13.6%, risk difference 6.1%, P 
ISSN:0025-7974
1536-5964
DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000009805