Objectives: Orthognathic surgery is a surgical procedure performed by intraoral approach with established and safe techniques; however, excessive blood loss has been reported in rare cases. In response, investigative efforts to identify methods to reduce the amount of blood loss have been made.Among such methods, the administration of tranexamic acid was reported to reduce the amount of intraoperative blood loss. However, few studies to date have reported the effect of tranexamic acid in orthognathic surgery under hypotensive anesthesia. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of the administration of tranexamic acid on intraoperative blood loss in patients undergoing bimaxillary (maxillary and mandibular) orthognathic surgery under hypotensive anesthesia. Patients and Methods: A total of 156 patients (mean age, 27.0±10.8 years) who underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery under hypotensive anesthesia performed by the same surgeon between June 2013 and February 2022 were included in this study. The following data were collected from the medical records of each patient: background factors (age, sex, and body mass index), use of tranexamic acid, surgical procedures, previous medical history, duration of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status findings before surgery, intraoperative blood loss as a primary outcome, in–out balance, and blood test results. Descriptive statistics were calculated for statistical analysis, and a t-test and the chi-squared test were used for between-group comparisons. Group comparisons were performed after 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for confounding factors. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results: Comparison between the groups based on the use of tranexamic acid revealed a significant difference in operation time. Propensity score matching analysis revealed that intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the tranexamic acid group. Conclusion The administration of tranexamic acid was effective in reducing intraoperative blood loss in patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery under hypotensive anesthesia.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.