Background Inhalational anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are techniques used for maintenance of general anesthesia for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Growing evidence exists that TIVA may be associated with decreased bleeding and improved surgical fields, yet data suggest it is used in a minority of sinus surgery cases. The objective of this study was to investigate perceptions and approaches to anesthetic maintenance techniques in ESS among anesthesia providers. Methods A total of 719 anesthesiology residents, faculty, and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) at 3 tertiary academic centers in the United States were invited to participate in a survey of considerations and practice patterns for inhalational anesthesia and TIVA for ESS. Results Responses were received from 200 participants (28%). Sixty‐five percent of respondents reported a lack of familiarity with current literature on TIVA for ESS. Many considered factors other than surgical field visualization when choosing a maintenance technique. Most were comfortable with performing TIVA but stated they would participate in additional training. Conclusion The majority of anesthesiology providers were unaware of the existing literature demonstrating advantage in improved surgical visualization with TIVA. Many used a combination of inhaled and intravenous anesthetics for maintenance. These findings suggest that future opportunities may exist to develop education, training, and practice approaches specific to anesthetic techniques for ESS.

Objectives: Topical vasoconstrictors and intravenous tranexamic acid (IV TXA) are safe and efficacious to decrease bleeding and improve the surgical field during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The purpose of this study was to investigate practice patterns, awareness of clinical evidence, and comfort levels among anesthesia providers regarding these hemostatic agents for ESS. Methods: A total of 767 attending anesthesiologists, residents, and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) at 5 United States academic centers were invited to participate in a survey regarding their experience with IV TXA and 3 topical vasoconstrictor medications (oxymetazoline, epinephrine, and cocaine) during ESS. Results: 330 (47%) anesthesia providers responded to the electronic survey. 113 (97%) residents, 92 (83%) CRNAs, and 52 (68%) attendings managed 5 or fewer ESS cases per month. Two-thirds of providers had not reviewed efficacy or safety literature for these hemostatic agents. Oxymetazoline was perceived safest, followed by epinephrine, IV TXA, and cocaine. Respondents considered potential side effects over surgical field visibility when selecting agents. The majority of providers had no formal training on these agents for ESS, but indicated interest in educational opportunities. Conclusion: Many anesthesia providers are unfamiliar with safety and efficacy literature regarding agents used to improve hemostasis for ESS, highlighting a need for development of relevant educational resources. Rhinologic surgeons have an opportunity to communicate with anesthesia colleagues on the use of hemostatic agents to improve the surgical field during ESS.