Effects of Inhalation Anaesthesia and Total Intravenous Anaesthesia on Intraocular Pressure in Robotic Prostate Surgery

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of inhalation anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia on intraocular pressure, as well as to evaluate associated hemodynamic changes, surgical duration, blood gas parameters, and the effects of pneumoperitoneum and steep trendelenburg positioning at different time intervals in patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used in the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. Due to patient characteristics, operative duration, and the requirement for a steep Trendelenburg position, RALP is associated with specific physiological changes. One of the most important concerns is the increase in intraocular pressure (IOP), which may lead to ocular complications. This study aimed to compare the effects of inhalation anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on intraoperative IOP changes during robotic prostate surgery. Methods: This prospective randomized study included 60 patients scheduled for elective robotic prostatectomy following ethics committee approval. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group 1 received sevoflurane–remifentanil anesthesia, and Group 2 received propofol–remifentanil anesthesia. Intraocular pressure, hemodynamic variables, blood gas parameters, respiratory mechanics, heart rate (HR), systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures (SBP, DBP, MBP), bispectral index (BIS), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂) were recorded at predefined time points from anesthesia induction to the postoperative period. Results: Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, anesthesia duration, Trendelenburg duration, pneumoperitoneum duration, and surgical time were comparable between the groups (P>.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups with respect to right or left intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements throughout the study period (P>.05). End tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂) levels and mean airway pressure were significantly higher in the sevoflurane group (P<.05). In both eyes, IOP showed a positive correlation with heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean blood pressure (MBP) at T1, as well as with ETCO₂ at T8 (P<.05). No significant correlation was found between IOP and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) or arterial oxygen tension (PaO₂) (P>.05). Conclusion: Although many perioperative factors affect intraocular pressure during robotic prostatectomy, no significant difference was observed between total intravenous anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia in terms of intraocular pressure changes.

Keywords

• Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
• intraocular pressure
• anesthetic technique
• inhalation anesthesia
• total intravenous anesthesia

Robotik Prostat Cerrahisinde İnhalasyon Anestezisi ve Total İntravenöz Anestezinin Göz İçi Basıncı Üzerindeki Etkileri

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, robot yardımlı laparoskopik prostatektomi uygulanan hastalarda inhalasyon anestezisi ile total intravenöz anestezinin intraoküler basınç üzerindeki etkilerini karşılaştırmak; ayrıca buna eşlik eden hemodinamik değişiklikler, cerrahi süre, kan gazı parametreleri ile pnömoperitoneum ve dik trendelenburg pozisyonunun farklı zaman aralıklarındaki etkilerini değerlendirmektir. Yöntemler: Bu prospektif ve randomize çalışmaya, etik kurul onayı alındıktan sonra elektif robot yardımlı prostatektomi planlanan toplam 60 hasta dahil edildi. Hastalar rastgele iki gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1’e sevofluran–remifentanil ile inhalasyon anestezisi, Grup 2’ye ise propofol–remifentanil ile total intravenöz anestezi uygulandı. İntraoküler basınç, hemodinamik değişkenler, kan gazı parametreleri, solunum mekanikleri, kalp hızı, sistolik, diyastolik ve ortalama kan basınçları, bispektral indeks, periferik oksijen satürasyonu ve end-tidal karbondioksit düzeyleri; anestezi indüksiyonundan postoperatif döneme kadar önceden belirlenmiş zaman noktalarında kaydedildi. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında demografik özellikler, komorbiditeler, anestezi süresi, Trendelenburg süresi, pnömoperitoneum süresi ve cerrahi süre açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı. Çalışma süresi boyunca sağ ve sol göz intraoküler basınç ölçümleri açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı bir fark gözlenmedi. End-tidal karbondioksit düzeyleri ve ortalama havayolu basıncı sevofluran grubunda anlamlı olarak daha yüksek bulundu. Her iki gözde intraoküler basınç; erken dönemde kalp hızı, sistolik, diyastolik ve ortalama kan basınçlarıyla, geç dönemde ise end-tidal karbondioksit düzeyleriyle pozitif korelasyon olduğu gösterildi. İntraoküler basınç ile periferik oksijen satürasyonu veya arteriyel oksijen basıncı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki saptanmadı. Sonuç: Robot yardımlı prostatektomi sırasında intraoküler basınç üzerinde birçok perioperatif faktör etkili olmakla birlikte, total intravenöz anestezi ile inhalasyon anestezisi arasında intraoküler basınç değişiklikleri açısından anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robot yardımlı laparoskopik prostatektomi
• intraoküler basınç
• inhalasyon anestezisi
• total intravenöz anestezi.

Kaynakça

1. 1. Lai HC, Lee MS, Lin KT, et al. Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0230290.
2. 2. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199(3):683-690.
3. 3. Dong J, Ji R, Cui L, et al. Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a new robotic surgical system: a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2024;24:1194.
4. 4. Ripa M, Schipa C, Kopsacheilis N, et al. The impact of steep Trendelenburg position on intraocular pressure. J Clin Med. 2022;11(10):2844.
5. 5. Khan A, Wang S, Saeedi O, Ryan A, Siddiqui MM. The impact of abdominal insufflation on the intraocular pressure during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. Published online February 10, 2025. doi:10.1089/end.2024.0509
6. 6. Goepfert CE, Ifune C, Tempelhoff R. Ischemic optic neuropathy: are we any further? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23:582-587.
7. 7. Weber E, Coyler M, Lesser R, Subramanian P. Posterior ischemic optic neuropathy after minimally invasive prostatectomy. J Neuroophthalmol. 2007;27:285-287.
8. 8. Kan KM, Brown SE, Gainsburg DM. Ocular complications in robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a review of pathophysiology and prevention. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81:557-566.

9. 9. Yoo YC, Shin S, Choi EK, Kim CY, Choi YD, Bai SJ. Increase in intraocular pressure is less with propofol than with sevoflurane during laparoscopic surgery in the steep Trendelenburg position. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61(4):322-329.
10. 10. Polarz H, Bohrer H, von Tabouillot W. Behavior of intraocular pressure in anesthesia with isoflurane in comparison with propofol/fentanyl. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 1995;30:96-98.
11. 11. Kaur G, Sharma M, Kalra P, Purohit S, Chauhan K. Intraocular pressure changes during laparoscopic surgery in Trendelenburg position in patients anesthetized with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared to sevoflurane anesthesia: a comparative study. Anesth Essays Res. 2018;12(1):67-72.
12. 12. Falabella A, Moore-Jeffries E, Sullivan MJ, Nelson R, Lew M. Cardiac function during steep Trendelenburg position and CO₂ pneumoperitoneum for robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a transoesophageal Doppler probe study. Int J Med Robot. 2007;3(4):312-315.
13. 13. Awad H, Santilli S, Ohr M, et al. The effects of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure during robotic radical prostatectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):473-478.
14. 14. Shirono Y, Takizawa I, Kasahara T, et al. Intraoperative intraocular pressure changes during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: associations with perioperative and clinicopathological factors. BMC Urol. 2020;20(1):26.
15. 15. Kondo Y, Echigo N, Mihara T, et al. Intraocular pressure during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective observational study. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2021;71(6):618-622.
16. 16. Rabinowitz J, Kinnear N, O'Callaghan M, et al. Systematic review of the ophthalmic complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2024;18(1):46.
17. 17. Mattiuzzi C, Lippi G. Current cancer epidemiology. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2019;9(4):217-222.
18. 18. Najmanová E, Pluháček F, Haklová M. Intraocular pressure response affected by changing of sitting and supine positions. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98(3):e368-e372.
19. 19. Ho VT, Newman NJ, Song S, Ksiazek S, Roth S. Ischemic optic neuropathy following spine surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2005;17(1):38-44.
20. 20. Pillunat LE, Anderson DR, Knighton RW, Joos KM, Feuer WJ. Autoregulation of human optic nerve head circulation in response to increased intraocular pressure. Exp Eye Res. 1997;64(5):737-744.
21. 21. Klein BEK, Klein R, Knudtson MD. Intraocular pressure and systemic blood pressure: longitudinal perspective: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:284-287.
22. 22. Hoshikawa Y, Tsutsumi N, Ohkoshi K, et al. The effect of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure and visual function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(3):305-308.
23. 23. Kim NY, Yoo YC, Park H, Choi YD, Kim CY, Bai SJ. The effect of dexmedetomidine on intraocular pressure increase in patients during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the steep Trendelenburg position. J Endourol. 2015;29(3):310-316.
24. 24. Awad H, Santilli S, Ohr M, et al. The effects of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure during robotic radical prostatectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):473-478.
25. 25. Gainsburg DM. Anesthetic concerns for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78:596-604.
26. 26. Haris SN, Ballantyne GH, Luther MA, Perrino AC Jr. Alterations of cardiovascular performance during laparoscopic colectomy: a combined hemodynamic and echocardiographic analysis. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:482-487.
27. 27. İnan G, Bozkırlı F, Karabıyık L. Robotik radikal prostatektomilerde total intravenöz anestezinin intraoküler basınca etkileri. J Ankara Univ Fac Med. 2016;69(3):247-251.
28. 28. Grosso A, Scozzari G, Bert F, et al. Intraocular pressure variation during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: standard pneumoperitoneum leads to reversible elevation in intraocular pressure. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3370-3376.
29. 29. Hofer CK, Zalunardo MP, Klaghofer R, Spahr T, Pasch T, Zollinger A. Changes in intrathoracic blood volume associated with pneumoperitoneum and positioning. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46(3):303-308.
30. 30. Hwang JW, Oh AY, Hwang DW, et al. Does intraocular pressure increase during laparoscopic surgeries? It depends on anesthetic drugs and the surgical position. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013;23:229-232.
31. 31. Taketani Y, Mayama C, Suzuki N, et al. Transient but significant visual field defects after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in deep Trendelenburg position. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123361.
32. 32. Sancı A, Durak HM, Karadağ OB, et al. From first to final: how surgical experience affects robotic radical prostatectomy outcomes. Bull Urooncol. 2025;24(1):19-24.
33. 33. Traboulsi SL, Nguyen DD, Zakaria AS, et al. Functional and perioperative outcomes in elderly men after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2020;38:2791-2798.
34. 34. Perera S, Fernando N, O’Brien J, et al. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: learning curves and outcomes from an Australian perspective. Prostate Int. 2023;11:51-57.
35. 35. Onol FF, Ganapathi H, Rogers T, et al. Changing clinical trends in 10 000 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy patients and impact of the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force's statement against PSA screening. BJU Int. 2019;124:1014-1021.