Patient experiences of sialendoscopy with monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia

ObjectiveTo compare the experiences of patients who received sialendoscopy under general anesthesia (GA) with those who received monitored anesthesia care (MAC).MethodsPatients who underwent sialendoscopy for sialadenitis or sialolithiasis from July 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, were offered inclusion to this prospective observational study. A survey was sent to consenting patients on post-operative day 1 to record aspects of their pre-, intra-, and post-operative experience. The primary outcome was overall satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included pain tolerability and preference for similar anesthetic modality in the future.ResultsSeventy-five patients completed the post-operative survey (86% response rate), of which 39 patients received GA and 36 received MAC. Patient overall satisfaction was similar between groups (GA: “Poor/Average/Good” = 23%, “Excellent” = 77%; MAC: “Poor/Average/Good” = 25%, “Excellent” = 75%, p = 1.00). Tolerability of immediate post-operative pain was likewise similar between the GA (82%) and MAC (97%) groups (p = 0.058). Patients who received MAC reported intra-operative pain as “none/tolerable” 72% of the time and “uncomfortable” 28% of the time. Patients who received GA would prefer the same anesthetic in the future more often than in the MAC group (85% versus 61%, respectively, OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.17–10.50, p = 0.035).ConclusionIn regard to patient satisfaction, both MAC and GA are acceptable anesthetic choices in sialendoscopy for appropriate cases. Patients report similar overall satisfaction and post-operative pain tolerance under either anesthetic modality. Patients who undergo GA report higher rates of preference for similar anesthetic modality in the future. Further study is needed to determine the most appropriate criteria for anesthesia modality selection.