4.0 Article

Pilot Study Comparing Total Intravenous Anesthesia to Inhalational Anesthesia in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Novel Approach of Blood Flow Quantification

期刊

ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY
卷 121, 期 11, 页码 725-732

出版社

ANNALS PUBL CO
DOI: 10.1177/000348941212101105

关键词

chronic rhinosinusitis; endoscopic sinus surgery; optical rhinometry; total intravenous anesthesia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We compared anesthesia with sevoflurane-remifentanil hydrochloride (SR) to total intravenous anesthesia with propofol remifentanil hydrochloride (PR) in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis in terms of sinonasal mucosal blood flow, the surgical field visualization score, and blood loss. Methods: We performed a double-blinded prospective study at a tertiary care center in 23 adults scheduled to undergo endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. The patients were randomized to receive SR or PR. The sinonasal mucosal blood flow was measured by optical rhinometry. The surgical field visualization score was based on the Boezaart scale. Results: The groups had similar clinical characteristics. During the 60- to 90-minute and 90- to 120-minute operative time windows, the blood flow was significantly greater in the PR group than in the SR group (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively). The amounts of blood loss in the PR and SR groups were 152.9 +/- 161.3 mL and 355.9 +/- 393.4 mL, respectively (p = 0.12). The median ratios of the surgical field visualization score to the number of sinuses operated on in the PR and SR groups were 2.1 and 1.8, respectively (p = 0.52). Conclusions: The intraoperative blood flow, as determined by optical rhinometry, was significantly greater with anesthesia with PR than with anesthesia with SR, 1 hour into the procedure; however, this difference did not translate into differences in the amounts of operative blood loss or in the surgical field visualization scores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据