Abstract
The objective of the study was to assess the more efficacious anesthesia method in septal surgery. The prospective study was conducted at an academic secondary referral center. A prospective chart review of 60 patients, between the ages of 16 and 65, who underwent septal surgery under general (GA) or sedation (SDA) anesthesia during 1-year period was done. Mean age of the patients was 44.30 ± 13.29. Patients were divided into two groups according to the anesthesia method: general (group 1) or sedation (group 2). Intraoperative hemodynamic variables, surgery time, intraoperative blood loss volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative vomiting and nausea, postoperative pain score according to the visual analog scale (VAS) and cost analysis of each method were compared. Thirty-six males and 24 females with a mean age 44.30 ± 13.29 were included to the study. Total operation time, operation time, intraoperative and postoperative bleeding volume, postoperative nausea and vomiting, duration of hospital stay after surgery, were better in group 2. Postoperative pain scores and patient satisfaction about surgery were not statistically different. Cost of anesthesia in group 1 per patient was $44.35 ± 10.81 and in group 2, $16.29 ± 11.88 (p < 0.01). Hospital stay after surgery was much longer in group 1 than group 2 (p < 0.01). Using SDA is better in many ways including cost-effectiveness than using GA for septoplasty operation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fornadley JA, Kennedy KS, Wilson JF, Galantich PT, Parker GS (1992) Anesthetic choice for functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 6:1–4. doi:10.2500/105065892781976745
Fedok FG, Ferraro RE, Kingsley CP, Fornadley JA (2000) Operative times, postanesthesia recovery times, and complications during sinonasal surgery using general anesthesia and local anesthesia with sedation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 122:560–566. doi:10.1067/mhn.2000.100495
Gittelman PD, Jacobs JB, Skorina J (1993) Comparison of functional endoscopic sinus surgery under local and general anesthesia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102:289–293
Danielsen A, Gravningsbråten R, Olofsson J (2003) Anaesthesia in endoscopic sinus surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 260(9):481–486. doi:10.1007/s00405-003-0613-z
D’Ascanio L, Cappiello L, Piazza F (2013) Unilateral hemiplegia: a unique complication of septoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 127(8):809–810. doi:10.1017/S0022215113001436
Tawadros AM, Prahlow JA (2008) Death related to nasal surgery: case report with review of therapy-related deaths. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 29:260–264. doi:10.1097/PAF.0b013e3181832432
Monteiro ML (2006) Unilateral blindness as a complication of nasal septoplasty: case report. Arq Bras Oftalmol 69:249–250. doi:10.1590/S0004-27492006000200020
Dogan R, Erbek S, Gonencer HH, Erbek HS, Isbilen C, Arslan G (2010) Comparison of local anaesthesia with dexmedetomidine sedation and general anaesthesia during septoplasty. Eur J Anaesthesiol 27:960–964. doi:10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833a45c4
Khwaja S, Pahade AV, Luff D, Green MW, Green KM (2007) Nasal fracture reduction: local versus general anaesthesia. Rhinology 45:83–88
Srinivasan V, Arasaratnam RB, Jankelowitz GA (1995) Day-case septal surgery under general anaesthesia and local anaesthesia with sedation. J Laryngol Otol 109(7):614–617
Waldron J, Mitchell DB, Ford G (1989) Reduction of fractured nasal bones; local versus general anaesthesia. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 14:357–359. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2273.1989.tb00384.x
Shiley SG, Lalwani K, Milczuk HA (2003) Intravenous sedation vs general anesthesia for pediatric otolaryngology procedures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129:637–641. doi:10.1001/archotol.129.6.637
Conflict of interest
None for all authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daşkaya, H., Yazıcı, H., Doğan, S. et al. Septoplasty: under general or sedation anesthesia. Which is more efficacious?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271, 2433–2436 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2865-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2865-6