Cargando…

Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery

BACKGROUND: To compare surgical field visibility between patients given propofol/remifentanil (PR) or desflurane/remifentanil (DR) anesthesia. METHODS: A total of 80 adult patients undergoing middle ear microsurgery due to cholesteatoma otitis media with American Society of Anesthesiologists physica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yuan, Xia, Liu, Tingjie, Hu, Chunbo, Shen, Xia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6533657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31122211
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0759-x
_version_ 1783421249068728320
author Yuan, Xia
Liu, Tingjie
Hu, Chunbo
Shen, Xia
author_facet Yuan, Xia
Liu, Tingjie
Hu, Chunbo
Shen, Xia
author_sort Yuan, Xia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare surgical field visibility between patients given propofol/remifentanil (PR) or desflurane/remifentanil (DR) anesthesia. METHODS: A total of 80 adult patients undergoing middle ear microsurgery due to cholesteatoma otitis media with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II were randomly assigned to the PR or DR groups. The depth of anesthesia was titrated to maintain a Bispectral index (BIS) between 40 and 50. Remifentanil was titrated to maintain the mean blood pressure within ±30% change of the pre-induction value. Surgical field visibility was rated at several timepoints by the surgeons using the Boezaart scores. RESULTS: Average Boezaart scores for surgical field visibility at different time points were < 2 in both PR and DR groups. Surgical field visibility score was lower in the PR group than in the DR group. Requirement for remifentanil was higher in the PR group (850 (488/1330) μg) than in the DR group (258 (143/399) μg, P < 0.0001). The site effect concentration of remifentanil was higher in the PR group (3.6(2.8/5.0)ng/ml) than in the DR group (1.7 (1.0/1.6) ng/ml, P < 0.0001). Hemodynamic profile (i.e., heart rate and mean blood pressure) was similar between groups (P > 0.05). Extubation time (PR group, 21 min vs. DR group, 19 min; P = 0.199) and post-anesthesia care unit time (PR group, 37 min vs. DR group, 34 min; P = 0.324) were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Although PR anesthesia resulted in lower surgical field visibility scores than DR anesthesia, both groups had scores < 2, meaning no clinical differences between the two groups. DR provided acceptable operative conditions as well, albeit more remifentanil consumption was noted in the DR group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: China Clinical Research Information Service, ChiCTR-1,800,015,537. Registered 5 April 2018. Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: 2 May 2018.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6533657
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65336572019-05-29 Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery Yuan, Xia Liu, Tingjie Hu, Chunbo Shen, Xia BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: To compare surgical field visibility between patients given propofol/remifentanil (PR) or desflurane/remifentanil (DR) anesthesia. METHODS: A total of 80 adult patients undergoing middle ear microsurgery due to cholesteatoma otitis media with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II were randomly assigned to the PR or DR groups. The depth of anesthesia was titrated to maintain a Bispectral index (BIS) between 40 and 50. Remifentanil was titrated to maintain the mean blood pressure within ±30% change of the pre-induction value. Surgical field visibility was rated at several timepoints by the surgeons using the Boezaart scores. RESULTS: Average Boezaart scores for surgical field visibility at different time points were < 2 in both PR and DR groups. Surgical field visibility score was lower in the PR group than in the DR group. Requirement for remifentanil was higher in the PR group (850 (488/1330) μg) than in the DR group (258 (143/399) μg, P < 0.0001). The site effect concentration of remifentanil was higher in the PR group (3.6(2.8/5.0)ng/ml) than in the DR group (1.7 (1.0/1.6) ng/ml, P < 0.0001). Hemodynamic profile (i.e., heart rate and mean blood pressure) was similar between groups (P > 0.05). Extubation time (PR group, 21 min vs. DR group, 19 min; P = 0.199) and post-anesthesia care unit time (PR group, 37 min vs. DR group, 34 min; P = 0.324) were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Although PR anesthesia resulted in lower surgical field visibility scores than DR anesthesia, both groups had scores < 2, meaning no clinical differences between the two groups. DR provided acceptable operative conditions as well, albeit more remifentanil consumption was noted in the DR group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: China Clinical Research Information Service, ChiCTR-1,800,015,537. Registered 5 April 2018. Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: 2 May 2018. BioMed Central 2019-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6533657/ /pubmed/31122211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0759-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yuan, Xia
Liu, Tingjie
Hu, Chunbo
Shen, Xia
Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery
title Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery
title_full Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery
title_fullStr Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery
title_short Comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery
title_sort comparison of surgical field visibility during propofol or desflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6533657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31122211
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0759-x
work_keys_str_mv AT yuanxia comparisonofsurgicalfieldvisibilityduringpropofolordesfluraneanesthesiaformiddleearmicrosurgery
AT liutingjie comparisonofsurgicalfieldvisibilityduringpropofolordesfluraneanesthesiaformiddleearmicrosurgery
AT huchunbo comparisonofsurgicalfieldvisibilityduringpropofolordesfluraneanesthesiaformiddleearmicrosurgery
AT shenxia comparisonofsurgicalfieldvisibilityduringpropofolordesfluraneanesthesiaformiddleearmicrosurgery