• Users Online: 75
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 188-194

Local anesthesia with sedation versus local anesthesia after general anesthesia for sinus surgery: a randomized trial


1 Department of Anaesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Zagazig University Hospital, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
2 Department of ENT, Zagazig University Hospital, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed T Ghanem
Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Zagazig University Hospital, Zagazig University, Zagazig
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/roaic.roaic_111_16

Rights and Permissions

Background Satisfaction for patients and surgeons during the perioperative functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) remains an anesthetic challenge. We compared FESS under local anesthesia (LA) with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and LA after induction of general anesthesia. Patients and methods One hundred patients scheduled for FESS were randomly recruited in this randomized controlled study. Fifty of them received LA after induction of general anesthesia (G group), while the rest of the patients received LA with MAC (M group). The outcome measures included satisfaction for the patient and surgeon, cost, surgical, and postoperative profiles. Results Surgeon’s satisfaction was comparable in both groups, while patient’s satisfaction was significantly higher in the M group (P<0.001). Total operative time and time to postanesthetic care unit discharge were significantly shorter in the M group (70.65±4.3 and 13.3±2 vs. 95.8±4.4 and 47.3±5.8 min in the G group, respectively; P<0.001). Time to home discharge was also shorter in the M group (66.0±23.78 vs. 262.20±11.8 min in the G group; P<0.001). The overall costs were significantly lesser in the M group (234.0±5.3 vs. 836.15±41.25 Egyptian pounds in the G group; P<0.001). Conclusion In FESS, LA with MAC provided excellent patient’s experience with optimum surgical and postoperative profiles and lower cost.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed846    
    Printed9    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded101    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal