Randomized controlled trial of intravenous sedation vs general anesthesia for esophageal dilation with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients

Sunpaweravong, Somkiat; Benjhawaleemas, Pannawit; Karnjanawanichkul, Orarat; Yolsuriyanwong, Kamthorn; Ruangsin, Sakchai; Laohawiriyakamol, Supparerk; Chaipetch, Orapan

doi:10.1007/s00464-023-09984-x

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The longer operation time in the GA group could be explained by the lack of consciousness to cooperate with mouth opening and positioning [10]. The duration of anesthesia was longer in the GA group than in the IVS group, mainly because of the additional time required for intubation, extubation, and waking up [11,12]. A shorter duration implies increased turnover, e ciency, and cost effectiveness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of safety of general anesthesia and intravenous sedation during third-molar extraction surgery: a retrospective study of 1,260 cases

Park,

Kim,

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the safety of general anesthesia (GA) and intravenous sedation (IVS) in patients who underwent extraction of one or more third molars. Data from 1,260 patients (GA group, n = 1,043; IVS group, n = 217) were retrospectively analyzed, including demographics, preoperative data, intraoperative hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation level), and medications administered intraoperatively and postoperatively. The incidence of intraoperative circulatory variations, surgery and anesthesia durations, postoperative complications, and medication use were assessed and compared. The GA group had longer anesthesia and surgery durations, a higher incidence of hypotension, and a higher frequency of postoperative analgesic use than the IVS group. Dexmedetomidine was the most frequently used sedative agent. The IVS group had a lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension but they had a higher need for vasopressors in the recovery room. Both anesthesia methods maintained satisfactory oxygen saturation levels and sufficient anesthesia throughout the procedure, but they showed different characteristics regarding the duration of surgery and anesthesia duration, hemodynamic stability, and postoperative analgesic needs. IVS may be preferable for patients at risk of cardiovascular complications such as hypotension or tachycardia during surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of safety of general anesthesia and intravenous sedation during third-molar extraction surgery: a retrospective study of 1,260 cases

Park,

Kim,

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, during IVS, the patient is conscious, and the biological defense responses and re exes are maintained. Thus, IVS is associated with a lower risk of complications than general anesthesia [7][8][9]. This method consists of IV administration of the benzodiazepine midazolam and general anesthetic propofol under conscious conditions to achieve intraoperative sedation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of intravenous sedation on implant-therapy outcomes

Kaneko,

Murakami,

Okada

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Intravenous (IV) sedation (IVS) is useful for reducing patient anxiety and fear during dental implant placement. However, its effects on long-term postoperative implant outcomes remain largely unknown. This study investigated the effects of IVS on implant-therapy outcomes. Methods This study included patients who underwent implant placement with a minimum follow-up of 3 years after superstructure attachment, had no systemic disease, and no bone augmentation. Patients with a history of smoking were excluded. The medical records of 67 implants in 58 patients who underwent implant therapy with IV sedation ([IVS] group, 31 implants in 38 patients) and those without IV sedation (control group, 29 implants in 27 patients) till the time period between July 1, 2000, and May 31, 2023, were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed for each endpoint to identify those with significant differences. Results The 3-year implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. The plaque-control records of the remaining teeth immediately before implant placement were significantly higher in the IVS group than in the control group, and bleeding on probing was significantly lower in the IVS group 3 years after superstructure attachment. The IVS group had a significantly higher number of patients with maintenance visits and additional implant placements than the control group. Conclusions Our results suggest that application of IVS for implant therapy improves patients’ willingness to receive dental prophylaxis.

show abstract

Comparison of safety of general anesthesia and intravenous sedation during third-molar extraction surgery

Park,

Kim,

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the safety of general anesthesia (GA) and intravenous sedation (IVS) in patients who underwent extraction of one or more third molars. Data from 1260 patients (GA group, n = 1043; IVS group, n = 217) were retrospectively analyzed, including demographics, preoperative data, intraoperative hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation level), and medications administered intraoperatively and postoperatively. The incidence of intraoperative circulatory variations, surgery and anesthesia durations, postoperative complications, and medication use were assessed and compared. The GA group had longer anesthesia and surgery durations, a higher incidence of hypotension, and a higher frequency of postoperative analgesic use than the IVS group. Dexmedetomidine was the most frequently used sedative agent. The IVS group had a lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension but they had a higher need for vasopressors in the recovery room. Both anesthesia methods maintained satisfactory oxygen saturation levels and sufficient anesthesia throughout the procedure, but they showed different characteristics regarding the duration of surgery and anesthesia duration, hemodynamic stability, and postoperative analgesic needs. IVS may be preferable for patients at risk of cardiovascular complications such as hypotension or tachycardia during surgery.

show abstract

Randomized controlled trial of intravenous sedation vs general anesthesia for esophageal dilation with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

Comparison of safety of general anesthesia and intravenous sedation during third-molar extraction surgery: a retrospective study of 1,260 cases

Comparison of safety of general anesthesia and intravenous sedation during third-molar extraction surgery: a retrospective study of 1,260 cases

Effect of intravenous sedation on implant-therapy outcomes

Comparison of safety of general anesthesia and intravenous sedation during third-molar extraction surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About