Which Anesthesia Regimen Is Best to Reduce Pulmonary Complications After Head and Neck Surgery?

Postoperative delirium in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium (POD) in the oral and maxillofacial settings has gained more attention in recent decades. Due to advances in medical technology, treatment possibilities have expanded treatment for elderly and frail patients. This scoping review explores the correlation between POD and oral and maxillofacial surgery, summarizing screening and management protocols and identifying risk factors in this surgical field.

METHODS

This review follows the Scoping Review extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR). A comprehensive literature search was performed using multiple databases, focusing on articles published from 2002 to 2023 that discuss delirium in oral and maxillofacial surgery settings. The review was registered beforehand in the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/r2ebc ).

RESULTS

From the initial 644 articles, 68 met the inclusion criteria. These studies highlighted the significant heterogeneity in POD diagnosis methods. The review identifies multiple risk factors across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases that influence the occurrence of POD. Significant and independent risk factors in multiple regression analysis were highlighted, creating a clinical prediction list for the occurrence of POD.

CONCLUSION

It is crucial to preoperatively identify patients at risk for POD and actively modify these risks throughout the patient's hospital stay. Implementing nonpharmacological preventive measures for at-risk patients is recommended to decrease the incidence of POD. Future research should focus on creating standardized specialty-specific protocols incorporating validated assessment tools and addressing the full spectrum of risk factors associated with POD.

Effects of Inhalation versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications after Anatomic Pulmonary Resection

Background

No consensus exists regarding whether volatile anesthetics are superior to intravenous anesthetics for reducing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients undergoing general anesthesia for surgery. Studies of this issue focused on anatomic pulmonary resection are lacking. This study compared the effects of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus volatile anesthesia on PPCs after anatomic pulmonary resection in patients with lung cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study examined the medical records of patients with lung cancer who underwent lung resection at our center between January 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs, which included prolonged air leak, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, empyema, atelectasis requiring bronchofiberscopy (BFS), acute lung injury (ALI), bronchopleural fistula (BPF), pulmonary embolism, and pulmonary edema. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the 2 groups. In total, 579 anatomic pulmonary resection cases were included in the final analysis.

Results

The analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the volatile anesthesia and TIVA groups in terms of PPCs, except for prolonged air leak. Neither of the groups showed atelectasis requiring BFS, ALI, BPF, pulmonary embolism, or pulmonary edema after PSM. However, the length of hospitalization, intensive care unit stay, and duration of chest tube indwelling were shorter in the TIVA group.

Conclusion

Volatile anesthetics showed no superiority compared to TIVA in terms of PPCs after anatomical pulmonary resection in patients with lung cancer. Considering the advantages of each anesthetic modality, appropriate anesthetic modalities should be used in patients with different risk factors and situations.