ABSTRACT : There are no clear guidelines available for the most suitable anaesthetic technique for sialendoscopies. Both GA and Monitored Anaesthesia Care (MAC) have their own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore the present study compared feasibility, safety and outcome of GA and MAC in adult patients undergoing sialendoscopies.

METHODS : : This prospective, randomized study included 60 ASA I / II adult patients undergoing diagnostic or interventional sialendoscopy, divided into groups ‘GA’ and ‘MAC’. Primary outcome was time to discharge from recovery room and secondary outcomes included operating room time, intra-operative and post-operative complications, patient satisfaction score and surgical difficulty score. Statistical analysis was performed using student’s t-test, chi-square/Fisher’s exact test. P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS : The two groups were comparable with respect to demographic profile, baseline heart rate and arterial pressure. Group MAC had significantly shorter durations of anaesthesia (p=.000) and surgery (p=.009) and total operating room time (p=.000). Median(IQR) time to discharge from recovery room was 30.0(11.25-45.0)min in group GA and 0.0(0.0-0.0)min in group MAC (p=0.000). In group MAC two patients required GA. In group GA three patients suffered trauma during nasal intubation and one developed laryngospasm. Patient satisfaction scores (p=0.074) and surgical difficulty scores (p=0.057) were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS : Sialendoscopy when performed under MAC, significantly hastens postoperative recovery, reduces perioperative complications and saves OT time without significant difference in patient satisfaction or surgical difficulty as compared to GA.