Affiliation:
1. Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Ear, Throat, Nose and Speech
2. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
3. Vaiblab
Abstract
Introduction. Endoscopic rhinosinus surgery stands out for its reduced complications and marked symptomatic improvement compared to open surgical approaches. However, local bleeding challenges may compromise the efficacy of minimally invasive procedures. Exploring terlipressin’s application in endoscopic rhinosinus surgery is a promising avenue, given its mechanism of action and successful use in obstetric and other medical practices.Aim. This study aimed to assess terlipressin’s efficacy in reducing intraoperative bleeding during endoscopic rhinosinus surgical interventions under general anesthesia.Materials and methods. A prospective randomized cohort study included 170 cases of endoscopic rhinosinus surgical interventions. The BT group (n = 89) received no terlipressin, while the T group (n = 81) had 200 mcg of terlipressin during surgery. Bleeding intensity was assessed on a 6-point scale. Heart rate, blood pressure, perfusion index, and bleeding intensity were recorded at 10th, 30th, and 60th minute into the operation (study points). Bleeding intensity ≥2 points was considered significant. Results. In the T group, mean BP was significantly higher at all study points than in the BT group. Perfusion index values in the terlipressin group were significantly lower throughout. ROC analysis highlighted perfusion index’s prognostic value at 30th and 60th minutes for predicting significant bleeding. Threshold perfusion index values associated with increased bleeding probability were 4.520 at 30th minutes and 5.040 at 60th minute. Multifactorial analysis linked intraoperative terlipressin administration to a lower likelihood of significant intraoperative bleeding.Conclusion. Intravenous terlipressin (200 mcg) effectively reduces intraoperative bleeding intensity without lowering arterial pressure during endoscopic rhinosinus surgical interventions under general anesthesia.
Reference31 articles.
1. Dessouky O, Hopkins C. Surgical versus medical interventions in CRS and nasal polyps: comparative evidence between medical and surgical efficacy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015;15(11):66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882- 015-0566-5.
2. Dalziel K, Stein K, Round A, Garside R, Royle P. Endoscopic sinus surgery for the excision of nasal polyps: A systematic review of safety and effectiveness. Am J Rhinol. 2006;20(5):506–519. https://doi.org/10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2923.
3. Sharma R, Lakhani R, Rimmer J, Hopkins C. Surgical interventions for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11):CD006990. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006990.pub2.
4. Boonmak P, Boonmak S, Laopaiboon M. Deliberate hypotension with propofol under anaesthesia for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(10):CD006623. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006623.pub3.
5. Pavlov VE, Karpishchenko SA. Implantable technologies in the rehabilitation of patients with congenital malformations of external and middle ear. Folia Otorhinolaryngologiae et Pathologiae Respiratoriae. 2018;24(3):4–8. (In Russ.) Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7-xG-uC33-EnCF1-jOfTn9phL2jHfuL/.