Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Inhalation Anesthesia

Postoperative Complications Clinical Trial

Official title:

The Comparison of Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Inhalation Anesthesia Procedures Used in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeries in View of Postoperative Complications and the Recovery Period

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT03187717
• Other study ID #: OzlemKocaturk
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• First received: May 22, 2017
• Last updated: June 13, 2017
• Start date: January 1, 2016
• Est. completion date: February 1, 2017

Study information

• Verified date: June 2017
• Source: Adnan Menderes University
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

The aim of us is to define the incidence of postoperative complications and recovery time in view of two anesthesia procedures.

During the period between 01.01.2016 and 01.01.2017, totally 583 patients were included in the study, who had oral and maxillofacial surgeries. Anesthesia types were determined as total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalation anesthesia (IA). Postoperative complications and recovery period were determined as tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension, hypotension, recovery time, additional analgesia, nausea-vomiting. Both anesthesia procedures were compared in terms of these postoperative complications and recovery time.

Description:

Totally American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II, 18-60 ages, 583 patients who had had oral and maxillofacial operations for 30 minutes and over with TIVA and IA methods between 1st Jan, 2016 and 1st Jan, 2017. The ones who had insufficient data in their files and who were conscious / superficial sedation patients were excluded from the study. The patients were allocated to two groups as TIVA and IA. The total intravenous anesthesia group was named "Group TIVA" , and the volatile anesthesia group was named "Group IA".

All the patients were opened vascular access after being taken into the operation room and were given anesthesia induction with 1 µg/kg fentanyl, 2 mg/kg propofol and 0,8 mg/kg rocuronium. The patients in Group IA were given 1-2% volume sevoflurane in 50% oxygen and 50% nitrous oxide during maintenance of anesthesia, while the patients in group TIVA were applied 4-10 mg/kg/h propofol and 0.05-0.1 µg/kg fentanyl IV infusion with 50% oxygen and 50% air. While being woken up, each patient was given 0.3 mg/kg tenoxicam for analgesia and 0.2 mg/kg metoclopramide for nausea-vomiting prophylaxis in a routine way. Each patient was taken into recovery room after extubation and pulse rate, non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and oxygen saturation monitorization were done. Postoperative complication and vital finding tracks of each patient were done as usual and were recorded.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 583
• Est. completion date: February 1, 2017
• Est. primary completion date: January 1, 2017
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 60 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Totally American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II, 18-60 ages patients who had had oral and maxillofacial operations for 30 minutes and over with TIVA and IA procedures between 1st Jan, 2016 and 1st Jan, 2017.

Exclusion Criteria:

• The ones who had insufficient data in their files and who were conscious/superficial sedation patients were excluded from the study.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Postoperative Complications
• Respiratory Aspiration

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
n/a

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Adnan Menderes University

References & Publications (8)

Adams HA, Schmitz CS, Baltes-Götz B. [Endocrine stress reaction, hemodynamics and recovery in total intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. Propofol versus isoflurane]. Anaesthesist. 1994 Nov;43(11):730-7. German. — View Citation

Bharti N, Chari P, Kumar P. Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol-based anesthesia on the hemodynamic response and recovery characteristics in patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012 Oct-Dec;6(4):380-4. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.105876. — View Citation

Dashfield AK, Birt DJ, Thurlow J, Kestin IG, Langton JA. Recovery characteristics using single-breath 8% sevoflurane or propofol for induction of anaesthesia in day-case arthroscopy patients. Anaesthesia. 1998 Nov;53(11):1062-6. — View Citation

Gecaj-Gashi A, Hashimi M, Sada F, Baftiu N, Salihu S, Terziqi H, Bruqi B. Propofol vs isoflurane anesthesia-incidence of PONV in patients at maxillofacial surgery. Adv Med Sci. 2010;55(2):308-12. doi: 10.2478/v10039-010-0033-4. — View Citation

Jellish WS, Lien CA, Fontenot HJ, Hall R. The comparative effects of sevoflurane versus propofol in the induction and maintenance of anesthesia in adult patients. Anesth Analg. 1996 Mar;82(3):479-85. — View Citation

Joo HS, Perks WJ. Sevoflurane versus propofol for anesthetic induction: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2000 Jul;91(1):213-9. — View Citation

Lee WK, Kim MS, Kang SW, Kim S, Lee JR. Type of anaesthesia and patient quality of recovery: a randomized trial comparing propofol-remifentanil total i.v. anaesthesia with desflurane anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Apr;114(4):663-8. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu405. Epub 2014 Dec 10. — View Citation

Watson KR, Shah MV. Clinical comparison of 'single agent' anaesthesia with sevoflurane versus target controlled infusion of propofol. Br J Anaesth. 2000 Oct;85(4):541-6. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Postoperative pain	Visual Analog Scale (VAS)	1 year