Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Previous research has shown different effects of anesthetics on cancer cell growth. Here, the authors investigated the association between type of anesthetic and patient survival after elective colon cancer surgery. Methods A retrospective cohort study included patients who received elective colon cancer surgery between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were grouped according to anesthesia received: propofol or desflurane. After exclusion of those who received combined propofol anesthesia with inhalation anesthesia or epidural anesthesia, survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. After propensity matching, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor–node–metastasis staging and postoperative metastasis. Results A total of 706 patients (307 deaths, 43.5%) with desflurane anesthesia and 657 (88 deaths, 13.4%) with propofol anesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 579 patients remained in each group (189 deaths, 32.6%, in the desflurane group vs. 87, 15.0%, in the propofol group). In the matched analyses, the propofol-treated group had a better survival, irrespective of lower tumor–node–metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.42; P < 0.001) or higher tumor–node–metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.55; P < 0.001) and presence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = 0.002) or absence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.62; P = 0.016). Simple propensity score adjustment produced similar findings. Conclusions Propofol anesthesia for colon cancer surgery is associated with better survival irrespective of tumor–node–metastasis stage.
BackgroundWe investigated the analgesic efficacy of bilateral superficial cervical plexus block in patients undergoing thyroidectomy and to determine whether it reduces the adverse effects of general anesthesia.MethodsWe prospectively recruited 162 patients who underwent elective thyroid operations from March 2006 to October 2007. They were randomly assigned to receive a bilateral superficial cervical block (12 ml per side) with isotonic saline (group A; n = 56), bupivacaine 0.5% (group B; n = 52), or levobupivacaine 0.5% (group C; n = 54) after induction of general anesthesia. The analgesic efficacy of the block was assessed with: intraoperative anesthetics (desflurane), numbers of patients needing postoperative analgesics, the time to the first analgesics required, and pain intensity by visual analog scale (VAS). Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for 24 h were also assessed by the “PONV grade.” We also compared hospital stay, operative time, and discomfort in swallowing.ResultsThere were no significant differences in patient characteristics. Each average end-tidal desflurane concentration was 5.8, 3.9, and 3.8% in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.001). Fewer patients in groups B and C required analgesics (A: B: C = 33:8:7; p < 0.001), and it took longer before the first analgesic dose was needed postoperatively (group A: B: C = 82.1:360.8:410.1 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative pain VAS were lower in groups B and C for the first 24 h postoperatively (p < 0.001). Incidences of overall and severe PONV were lower, however, there were not sufficient numbers of patients to detect differences in PONV among the three groups. Hospital stay was shorter in group B and group C (p = 0.011). There was no significant difference in operative time and postoperative swallowing pain among the three groups.ConclusionsBilateral superficial cervical plexus block reduces general anesthetics required during thyroidectomy. It also significantly lowers the severity of postoperative pain during the first 24 h and shortens the hospital stay.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.