+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Use of α 2 -Adrenergic Agonists to Improve Surgical Field Visibility in Endoscopy Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials



Use of α 2 -Adrenergic Agonists to Improve Surgical Field Visibility in Endoscopy Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials



Clinical Therapeutics 40(1): 136-149.E19



We assessed the evidence for the use of α2-adrenergic agonists (A2AAs) in bleeding control and field quality in endoscopic sinus surgery. We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing A2AAs in endoscopic sinus surgery. Abstracts were reviewed by 2 investigators for eligibility, and selected articles were fully reviewed. Data on study design, population, A2AA drug and control groups, bleeding and surgical field quality outcomes, and adverse effects were extracted and synthesized. A total of 13 RCTs that included 896 individuals (7 double-blind trials, 5 single-blind trials, and 1 open-label trial) were selected that assessed the efficacy of clonidine (6 RCTs, 407 patients), dexmedetomidine (6 RCT, 423 patients), or both (1 RCT, 66 patients). Clonidine was compared with placebo (3 RCTs), midazolam (1 RCT), and remifentanil (2 RCTs). Dexmedetomidine was compared with esmolol (2 RCTs), remifentanil (2 RCTs), nitroglycerin and esmolol (1 RCT), and magnesium sulfate (1 RCT). Clonidine and dexmedetomidine were compared in 1 RCT. Clonidine reduced the proportion of individuals with an impaired surgical field by 23% vs placebo (number needed to treat = 4). Clonidine was better than midazolam and remifentanil in 2 trials, and dexmedetomidine was better than magnesium sulfate and esmolol in 2 trials but was not superior to esmolol, remifentanil, or nitroglycerin in 4 trials. Dexmedetomidine produced significantly better differences in bleeding outcomes versus clonidine. Adverse events were infrequent and mainly caused by hypotension or bradycardia. RCTs consistently report that A2AAs reduce bleeding and improve surgical field quality during endoscopic sinus surgery. Adverse event reporting was often omitted in RCTs. Well-designed RCTs with appropriate sample sizes are desirable to identify the best A2AAs and confirm their potential effects on clinical outcomes.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 065657995

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 29268957

DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.11.010


Related references

Use of Alpha-2 Adrenergic Agonists to Improve Surgical Field Visibility In Ear And Nasal Surgery: A Systematic Review. Clinical Therapeutics 37(8): E153-E154, 2015

Visibility aids for pedestrians and cyclists: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Accident; Analysis and Prevention 36(3): 305-312, 2004

Non-surgical complications after laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer - A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 41(9): 1118-1127, 2015

Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Bmj 347: F5934, 2013

A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Systematic Reviews 5(1): 131, 2018

Does preoperative rehabilitation for patients planning to undergo joint replacement surgery improve outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Bmj Open 6(2): E009857, 2016

Closed suction surgical wound drainage after hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. International Orthopaedics 32(6): 723-727, 2007

Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review. Bmc Research Notes 8: 403, 2016

Reply: A Systematic Review of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: Part I. Risk of Bias and Outcomes: Common Pitfalls Plastic Surgeons Can Overcome, and A Systematic Review of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: Part 2. Funding Source, Conflict of Interest, and Sample Size in Plastic Surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 138(4): 778e-779e, 2016

Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia 185(5): 263-267, 2006

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation 40(11): 1251-1258, 2017

Evaluation of Quality Assessment Tools for Non-Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing Surgical Interventions: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. Value in Health 18(7): A722, 2015

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj Open 3(2), 2013

Can exercise improve self esteem in children and young people? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Journal of Sports Medicine 39(11): 792-8; Discussion 792-8, 2005

Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on weight loss: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Bmj 344: D7771, 2012