Is hypotensive anaesthesia guided by invasive intraarterial monitoring required for orthognathic surgery? - A retrospective review of anaesthetic practice and intraoperative blood loss in orthognathic surgery in a tertiary hospital

Current Orthognathic Surgery Practice Patterns Among Academic OMS

OBJECTIVE

Currently there is variation in perioperative care of orthognathic surgery patients and limited clinical practice guidelines. The current orthognathic surgery practice patterns among US academic OMFS training centers have not been described. The purpose of this study is to describe the practice patterns among US academic OMFS training centers.

DESIGN

The study design is cross-sectional. Data was collected through a survey of the sample.

SETTING

OMFS programs in the US.

PARTICIPANTS

Academic OMFS. 573 surgeons were contacted and 85 responses were received.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Descriptive and bivariate statistics were reported.

RESULTS

Respondents were 87% male and worked in full-time academic (80%), part-time academic (19%), or military settings (1%). Thirty-one percent have practiced for 30 years or more and then 29% with 11-20 years, 18% with 21-30 years, 12% with 6-10 years and 11% with 1-5 years. Twenty-six percent of respondents perform 20-40 orthognathic surgeries a year, 22% perform less than 20 surgeries a year, 21% perform 40-60 surgeries per year, and 19% perform more than 100 surgeries per year. Intraoperatively, 48% of surgeons request a mean arterial pressure of 60-64 mmHg, 25% utilize tranexamic acid (TXA), 85% report a blood loss of less than 400 milliliters, and 93% report a blood transfusion rate of <1%.

CONCLUSION

There are variations in orthognathic surgery practice patterns with limited clinical practice guidelines. Only 13 of the 32 survey questions had a single response holding a simple majority. This study demonstrates the need for further research and evidence-based protocols and decision making.

Comparative evaluation of propofol versus dexmedetomidine infusion for hypotensive anesthesia during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a prospective randomized trial

Background

During functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), intranasal bleeding affects operative field visibility and increases the frequency of complications. Therefore, hypotensive anesthesia is a widely used technique to improve surgical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of propofol and dexmedetomidine infusion for hypotensive anesthesia in patients undergoing FESS.

Methods

This prospective randomized trial was conducted in 80 adult patients who were scheduled for FESS under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: group P (n = 40) received propofol infusion of 100–200 µg/kg/min and group D (n = 40) received dexmedetomidine infusion with a loading dose of 1 µg/kg over 10 min after induction, followed by maintenance infusion of 0.4–0.8 µg/kg/h. Intraoperative blood loss, quality of the surgical field (Fromme– Boezaart scale), hemodynamic control, and patient recovery were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t-test, chi-square test, and Mann– Whitney U test.

Results

The mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in group D throughout the surgery than in group P. Blood loss was significantly higher in group P (100.73 ± 18.12 ml) than in group D (85.70 ± 18.56 ml). The average number of patients with Fromme’s score 1/2/3 was comparable between the groups. Intraoperatively, only one incidence of bradycardia and hypotension was observed in group D (2.5%) compared to group P.

Conclusions

Both dexmedetomidine and propofol are efficacious and safe drugs for facilitating controlled hypotension during FESS; however, dexmedetomidine provides better hemodynamic control and is associated with lesser blood loss without any significant adverse effects.

Penehyclidine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following bimaxillary surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred fifty-four patients were randomly allocated into three groups. In the Control group, placebo (normal saline) was injected before anesthesia and infused over 48 h after surgery; in the Bolus group, 0.5 mg penehyclidine was injected before anesthesia, whereas placebo was infused after surgery; in the Infusion group, 0.25 mg penehyclidine were injected before anesthesia, another 0.25 mg penehyclidine was infused after surgery. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PONV within 72 h.

RESULTS

A total of 353 patients were included in intention-to-treat analysis. The PONV incidence was 61.0% (72/118) in the Control group, 40.2% (47/117) in the Bolus group, and 28.0% (33/118) in the Infusion group. The incidence was significantly lower in the Bolus group than in the Control group (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; adjusted P = 0.003) and in the Infusion group than in the Control group (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.33-0.63; adjusted P < 0.001); the difference between the Infusion and Bolus groups was not statistically significant (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.48-1.00; adjusted P = 0.144). Emergence agitation occurred more frequently in the Bolus group than in the Control group (36.8% [43/117] vs. 21.2% [25/118], adjusted P = 0.027), but did not differ significantly between the Infusion and Control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine was effective in preventing PONV without increasing emergence agitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04454866.

Comparison of hypotensive properties of dexmedetomidine versus clonidine for induced hypotension during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: A randomised, double-blind interventional study

Background and Aims

Excessive bleeding is a major concern in functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) under general anaesthesia; this can be decreased by various hypotensive agents. This study was conducted to compare the hypotensive effectiveness and haemodynamic stability of dexmedetomidine and clonidine in patients undergoing elective FESS.

Methods

In this prospective double-blinded interventional study, 70 adult patients of either sex, 20-50 years of age, posted for elective FESS were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A received a loading dose of intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, followed by infusion of 1 μg/kg/h, and group B received a loading dose of IV clonidine 2 μg/kg, followed by 1 μg/kg/h infusion. Surgical field quality, emergence time, sedation score, visual analogue score, recovery profile and haemodynamic parameters were recorded. Statistical analysis was done by Student's unpaired t-test to evaluate the significance of normally distributed variables, whereas Mann-Whitney test and Chi-square test were used for ordinal data and categorical variables and proportions, respectively.

Results

In both the groups, target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65-70 mmHg and improved surgical field quality were achieved. MAP and heart rate (HR) were statistically significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group with a longer duration of post-operative analgesia (P = 0.001). None of the groups showed any statistically significant adverse effects.

Conclusions

Both dexmedetomidine and clonidine can be used for controlled hypotension to improve surgical field quality in FESS. Dexmedetomidine provides more haemodynamic stability and an additional benefit of post-operative analgesia and conscious sedation.