medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Acta Médica Grupo Ángeles

ISSN 3061-7774 (Electronic)
ISSN 1870-7203 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Hospital Ángeles Health System
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
    • Manuscript submission
    • Policies
    • Names and affiliations of the Editorial Board
  • About us
    • Data sharing policy
    • Stated aims and scope
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2026, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta Med 2026; 24 (4)

Post-anaesthesia complications in pediatric patients undergoing cochlear implantation with balanced general anesthesia versus total intravenous anesthesia

Díaz EER, Baranda VH
Full text How to cite this article 10.35366/123500

DOI

DOI: 10.35366/123500
URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.35366/123500

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 395-399
PDF size: 492.19 Kb.


Key words:

cochlear implant, balanced general anesthesia, total intravenous anesthesia.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: cochlear implantation (CI) is a viable option for children with profound hearing loss, who experience significant improvements in their hearing, speech, and language skills. The surgery is safe from six months of age, and anesthetic management can be either balanced general anesthesia (BGA) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). The most common postanesthetic complications are pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Material and methods: a retrospective, comparative, longitudinal, and observational cohort study with non-probability sampling was conducted to determine the ideal anesthetic management for pediatric patients undergoing CI (with a lower incidence of post-anesthetic complications) between BGA and TIVA, and to identify if there is a significant difference between the two procedures. Results: sixty-one medical records were reviewed, of which 37 cases involved BGA and 24 involved IVAT. BGA was associated with greater use of analgesics and antiemetics. TIVA appeared to be used more frequently in older patients, while BGA was preferred in infants. No patient experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Postoperative pain was minimal in both groups. There was no association between postoperative pain and the anesthetic technique. Postoperative tachycardia and hypertension were more common with BGA. Conclusions: although TIVA showed fewer cases of postoperative tachycardia and hypertension, it is not statistically possible to conclude that it is the best anesthetic technique due to the limited number of reported cases. However, it has the advantage of requiring less antiemetics and analgesics, which would translate into lower resource utilization.


REFERENCES

  1. Eshraghi AA, Nazarian R, Telischi FF, Rajguru SM, Truy E, Gupta C.The cochlear implant: historical aspects and future prospects. AnatRec (Hoboken). 2012; 295 (11): 1967-1980. doi: 10.1002/ar.22580.

  2. Dettman SJ, Pinder D, Briggs RJS, Dowell RC, Leigh JR. Communicationdevelopment in children who receive the cochlear implant youngerthan 12 months: risks versus benefits. Ear Hear. 2007; 28 (2 Suppl):11S-18S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31803153f8.

  3. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Sordera y pérdida de la audición.Ginebra: OMS www.who.int.; 2025. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss

  4. Secretaria de Salud. En el INER, 217 personas recuperan la audicióncon implante coclear. Ciudad de México: gob.mx; 2024. Disponibleen: https://www.gob.mx/salud/prensa/en-el-iner-217-personasrecuperan-la-audicion-con-implante-coclear

  5. Pairaudeau C, Mendonca C. Anaesthesia for major middle earsurgery. BJA Education. 2019; 19(5): 136-143. doi: 10.1016/j.bjae.2019.01.006.

  6. Bajwa SS, Kulshrestha A. The cochlear implantation surgery: a reviewof anesthetic considerations and implications. Int J Heal Allied Sci.2013; 2: 225-229.

  7. Deep NL, Purcell PL, Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Roland Jr. JT, WaltzmanSB. Cochlear implantation in infants: evidence of safety. Trends Hear.2021; 25: 233121652110146. doi: 10.1177/23312165211014695.

  8. Bruijnzeel H, Wammes E, Stokroos RJ, Topsakal V, de Graaff JC.A retrospective cohort study of adverse event assessment duringanesthesia-related procedures for cochlear implant candidacyassessment and cochlear implantation in infants and toddlers. PaediatrAnesth. 2020; 30 (9): 1033-1040. doi: 10.1111/pan.13950.

  9. Haque A, Kumar T, Suman S, Hessa C. Better anesthesia technique:a case series of cochlear implants. Anesth Essays Res. 2021; 15 (2):250-252. doi: 10.4103/aer.aer_144_21

  10. Baidya DK, Dehran M. Anaesthesia for cochlear implant surgery.Tren Anaesth Crit Care. 2011; 1 (2): 90-94. doi: 10.1016/j.tacc.2011.01.004.

  11. McJunkin J, Jeyakumar A. Complications in pediatric cochlearimplants. Am J Otolaryngol. 2010; 31 (2): 110-113. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2008.11.012.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Acta Med. 2026;24