ObjectiveAnimals underwent combined general-epidural anesthesia (EGA) is reported to have better long-time outcome than general anesthesia (GA). This study aimed to make overall evaluation of the association between these two anesthetic techniques and prognosis of cancer patients undergoing surgery.MethodsRelated databases such as PubMed and EMbase were searched for eligible studies that evaluated the influence of EGA and GA on the prognosis of cancer patients undergoing surgery. Selected studies were evaluated according to the inclusion criteria by two reviewers respectively, followed by data extraction and quality assessment. The odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the influence strength of EGA and GA on prognosis of cancer patients.ResultsA total of ten studies involving 3254 patients were included. The overall results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between EGA and GA group (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06, P = 0.187) concerning postoperative recurrence and metastasis rate. In regard to the following two factors: cancer category and time of follow-up, subgroup analysis identified significant differences between EGA and GA in the group of patients with prostate cancer and the group with follow-up less than or equal to two years (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.95, P = 0.027; OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98, P = 0.035; respectively) concerning postoperative recurrence and metastasis rate. However, no significant difference was found in the group of patients with colorectal cancer (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.84–1.33, P = 0.62).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that EGA might be associated with improvement in prognosis of patients with operable prostate cancer and the cancer patients with follow-up less than or equal to two years. However, no obvious relationship between the improvement in prognosis of colorectal cancer and EGA were detected, comparing to GA. Furthermore, all the results should be interpreted cautiously, as heterogeneous data were used for analyzing.

Difficult and failed intubations account for the major causes of morbidity and mortality in current anesthetic practice. Several devices including McGrath Series 3 videolaryngoscope are available which may facilitate tracheal intubation by improving view of the larynx compared with Macintosh blade laryngoscopy. But no studies demonstrate whether McGrath Series 3 performs better than Macintosh laryngoscope in normal airway intubations by inexperienced anesthetists so far. We therefore designed this randomized controlled study to compare McGrath with Macintosh in routine tracheal intubation performed by inexperienced anesthetists.In total, 180 adult patients with normal-appearing airways requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to be intubated by 9 inexperienced anesthetists with McGrath or Macintosh. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Ease of intubation was assessed by a 5-point ordinal scale. Intubation attempts/failures, best laryngoscopy view using the Cormack–Lehane grade, associated complications and hemodynamic changes during intubation were recorded.We found that there was no significant difference between McGrath and Macintosh in the median time to intubation (P = 0.46); the Cormack–Lehane views attained using McGrath were superior (P < 0.001); the difference of ease of intubation was statistically significant (P = 0.01). No serious trauma occurred in both groups. And there was statistically significant difference in the systolic blood pressure changes between 2 groups (P < 0.05).We demonstrated that in orotracheal intubation in patients with normal airway by inexperienced anesthetists, McGrath compared with the Macintosh allows superior glottis views, greater ease of intubation, less complications, and hemodynamic changes with noninferior intubation time. And it remained a potential selection for inexperienced anesthetists in uncomplicated intubation.