Total intravenous anesthesia vs single pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent postoperative vomiting in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 1202-1209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian S. Schaefer ◽  
Peter Kranke ◽  
Stephanie Weibel ◽  
Robert Kreysing ◽  
Janika Ochel ◽  
...  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Negrini ◽  
Andrew Wu ◽  
Atsushi Oba ◽  
Ben Harnke ◽  
Nicholas Ciancio ◽  
...  

Abstract Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) has been increasingly recognized as a contributor to postoperative complications. A consensus-working group recommended that POCD should be distinguished between delayed cognitive recovery, i.e., evaluations up to 30 days postoperative, and neurocognitive disorder, i.e., assessments performed between 30 days and 12 months after surgery. Additionally, the choice of the anesthetic, either inhalational or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and its effect on the incidence of POCD, has become a focus of research. Our primary objective was to search the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to verify whether the choice of general anesthesia may impact the incidence of POCD in the first 30 days postoperatively. As a secondary objective, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to estimate the effects of the anesthetic on POCD between 30 days and 12 months postoperative. For the primary objective, an initial review of 1,913 articles yielded 12 studies with a total of 3,639 individuals. For the secondary objective, five studies with a total of 751 patients were selected. In the first 30 days postoperative, the odds-ratio for POCD in TIVA group was 0.60 (95% CI = 0.40 - 0.91; p = 0.02), compared to the inhalational group. TIVA was associated with a lower incidence of POCD in the first 30 days postoperatively. Regarding the secondary objective, due to the small number of selected articles and its high heterogeneity, a metanalysis was not conducted. Giving the heterogeneity of criteria for POCD, future prospective studies with more robust designs should be performed to fully address this question.


Author(s):  
Weiping wang ◽  
Shangyingying Li ◽  
Hui Liu ◽  
Qin Tian ◽  
Hang Chen ◽  
...  

Background: There is no consensus regarding the optimal anesthetic approach to rigid bronchoscopy in children suffering from tracheobronchial FBA. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the different anesthesia agents and ventilation modes for tracheobronchial foreign body removal via rigid bronchoscopy in young children. Methods: A systematic search of three major databases for all relevant articles. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze the data. Results: Four trials for evaluating different anesthetics and six trials for evaluating two kinds of ventilation modes were found. Compared with the sevoflurane-based volatile anesthesia group , the rate of perioperative complications included hypoxemia (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.38–3.11; P=0.0004; I2 = 0%), apnea (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.11–6.78; P = 0.03; I2 = 60%), laryngospasm (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.67–4.98; P=0.0001; I2 = 0%), cough/bucking (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.86–4.63; P<0.00001; I2 = 0%), and body movement (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.03–6.09; P<0.00001; I2 = 0%) were significantly increased in the propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia and the duration of operation were longer in the Group Prop. Compared with the control ventilation group , the incidences of laryngospasm (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05–0.56; P=0.004; I2 = 54%), apnea (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09–0.50; P=0.0004; I2 = 0%), and cough/bucking (OR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01–0.10; P<0.00001; I2 = 41%) increased in the spontaneous ventilation group and the duration of operationand emergence from anesthesia significantly prolonged in the Group SV. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that sevoflurane-based volatile anesthesia was superior to propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for the management of foreign body aspiration in children. There is still no strong evidence indicated that one ventilation technique was superio


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 1011-1023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan‐Pin Hsu ◽  
Karen Chia‐Wen Chu ◽  
Chyi‐Huey Bai ◽  
Chun‐Jen Huang ◽  
Chiehfeng Chen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document