The suitability of ambulatory surgery for a patient with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains controversial because of concerns of increased perioperative complications including postdischarge death. Therefore, a Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia task force on practice guidelines developed a consensus statement for the selection of patients with OSA scheduled for ambulatory surgery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Although the studies evaluating perioperative outcome in OSA patients undergoing ambulatory surgery are sparse and of limited quality, they do provide useful information that can guide clinical practice. Patients with a known diagnosis of OSA and optimized comorbid medical conditions can be considered for ambulatory surgery, if they are able to use a continuous positive airway pressure device in the postoperative period. Patients with a presumed diagnosis of OSA, based on screening tools such as the STOP-Bang questionnaire, and with optimized comorbid conditions, can be considered for ambulatory surgery, if postoperative pain can be managed predominantly with nonopioid analgesic techniques. On the other hand, OSA patients with nonoptimized comorbid medical conditions may not be good candidates for ambulatory surgery. What other guidelines are available on this topic? The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) practice guidelines for management of surgical patients with OSA published in 2006. Why was this guideline developed? The ASA guidelines are outdated because several recent studies provide new information such as validated screening tools for clinical diagnosis of OSA and safety of ambulatory laparoscopic bariatric surgery in OSA patients. Therefore, an update on the selection of patients with OSA undergoing ambulatory surgery is warranted. How does this guideline differ from existing guidelines? Unlike the ASA guidelines, this consensus statement recommends the use of the STOP-Bang criteria for preoperative OSA screening and considers patients' comorbid conditions in the patient selection process. Also, current literature does not support the ASA recommendations that upper abdominal procedures are not appropriate for ambulatory surgery. Why does this guideline differ from existing guidelines? This consensus statement differs from existing ASA guidelines because of the availability of new evidence.

Background:An important requirement during functional endoscopic sinus surgery is to maintain a clear operative field to improve visualization during surgery and to minimize complications.Materials and Methods:We compared total intravenous anesthesia using propofol with inhalational anesthesia using isoflurane for controlled hypotension in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. It was a prospective study in a tertiary hospital in India. Forty ASA physical status I and II adult patients (16–60 years) were randomly allocated to one of two parallel groups (isoflurane group, n = 20; propofol group, n = 20). The primary outcome was to know whether total intravenous anesthesia using propofol was superior to inhalational anesthesia using isoflurane for controlled hypotension. The secondary outcomes measured were intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, surgeon's opinion regarding the surgical field and the incidence of complications.Results:The mean (±SD) time to achieve the target mean blood pressure was 18 (±8) minutes in the isoflurane group and 16 (±7) minutes in the propofol group (P = 0.66). There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.402) between these two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss and operative field conditions (P = 0.34).Conclusions:Controlled hypotension can be achieved equally and effectively with both propofol and isoflurane. Total intravenous anesthesia using propofol offers no significant advantage over isoflurane-based anesthetic technique in terms of operative conditions and blood loss.