Desflurane是一种吸入性麻醉剂，具有优美的恢复剖面。本系统性综述研究了成人进行颅内肿瘤切除术期间使用desflurane与其他吸入和静脉麻醉剂的临床效果和不良反应。从2001年1月至2021年1月，通过MEDLINE、国会图书馆和LISTA（EBSCO）数据库进行文献搜索。本系统综述共包括了2003年至2020年间发表的12篇研究。维持麻醉的药物包括desflurane、isoflurane、sevoflurane和propofol。脑松弛评分显示desflurane与其他麻醉药物之间没有统计学上显著的差异。恢复时间点，如恢复时间、睁眼时间、拔管时间、遵循口令时间和达到修改的Aldrete评分≥9时间，在大多数研究中desflurane明显缩短。系统血液动力学变量（平均动脉压和心率）和脑血流动力学（颅内压力和脑脊液压力）在每项研究中desflurane与其他麻醉药物相当。本系统综述结果表明，在成人颅内肿瘤手术维持麻醉时，desflurane使用的不良反应较少。利用标准参数评估进行的大型前瞻性综合研究可以提供支持这些发现的更高水平的证据。版权所有©2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.保留所有权利。

Desflurane is an inhalational anesthetic agent with an appealing recovery profile. The present systematic review investigates the clinical effects and adverse events associated with desflurane use during supratentorial craniotomy for brain tumor resection in adults in comparison with other inhalational and intravenous anesthetic agents. A literature search was conducted across the MEDLINE, Library of Congress and LISTA (EBSCO) databases from January 2001 to January 2021. Twelve studies published between 2003 and 2020 were included in this systematic review. Desflurane was compared with either isoflurane, sevoflurane, or propofol for anesthesia maintenance. Brain relaxation scores showed no statistically significant difference between desflurane and the other anesthetic agents. Recovery timepoints, such as time to recovery, time to eye opening, time to extubation, time to follow commands, and time to reach a modified Aldrete score ≥9 were significantly shorter with desflurane in the majority of studies. Systemic hemodynamic variables (mean arterial pressure and heart rate) and cerebral hemodynamics (intracranial pressure and cerebrospinal fluid pressure) were comparable between desflurane and other anesthetic agents in each study. The results of this systematic review demonstrate that desflurane is associated with few adverse events when used for anesthesia maintenance in adult patients undergoing supratentorial brain tumor surgery. Large, prospective, comprehensive studies, utilizing standardized parameter evaluation could provide higher levels of evidence to support these findings.Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.