Bilateral Superficial Cervical Plexus Block Combined with General Anesthesia Administered in Thyroid Operations

We 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. We 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. There 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. Bilateral 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

Effect of Epidural Neuraxial Blockade-dependent Sedation on the Ramsay Sedation Scale and the Composite Auditory Evoked Potentials Index in Surgical Intensive Care Patients

Peripheral deafferentation induced by neuraxial anesthesia reduces the degree of cortical arousal. This study investigated whether epidural analgesia blockade decreased sedation, as measured by the rapidly extracted auditory evoked potentials index, A-line autoregressive index (AAI) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) in sedated surgical intensive care patients, and looked at whether this was a concentration-dependent effect of lidocaine. Methods: Forty patients underwent major lower abdominal surgery and received epidural analgesia in the surgical intensive care unit. Patients were continuously sedated with propofol to achieve an RSS value of 3, randomly divided into two groups, and received epidural analgesia with 10 mL of 0.5% or 1% lidocaine. Sedation was evaluated using the RSS and AAI, and analgesia was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). RSS, AAI, electromyography (EMG) activity of AAI and VAS values were recorded at 5 minutes before and 30, 60 and 90 minutes after epidural lidocaine administration. Results: Epidural 0.5% lidocaine produced a reduction of AAI, EMG and VAS at 30, 60 and 90 minutes after administration. For 1% epidural lidocaine administration, AAI, EMG and VAS were also reduced at 30, 60 and 90 minutes after epidural lidocaine administration. However, there was no difference in the AAI between the two concentrations; moreover, no significant change was observed in the RSS. Conclusion: Epidural lidocaine analgesia could potentiate sedation in patients evaluated by the AAI, but had no effect on the RSS. The present study suggests that the AAI could provide an objective and more precise index than the RSS in evaluation of sedation level in patients who are undergoing epidural pain management in the intensive care unit

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia did not improve survival compared to desflurane anesthesia in breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND:Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and several perioperative factors may account for tumor recurrence and metastasis. The anesthetic agents employed during cancer surgery might play a crucial role in cancer cell survival and patient outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between the type of anesthesia and overall survival in patients who underwent breast cancer surgery performed by one experienced surgeon. METHODS:All patients who underwent breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon between January 2006 and December 2010 were included in this study. Patients were separated into two groups according to the use of desflurane or propofol anesthesia during surgery. Locoregional recurrence and overall survival rates were assessed for the two groups (desflurane or propofol anesthesia). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models and propensity score matching analyses were used to compare the hazard ratios for death and adjust for potential confounders (age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, TNM stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Charlson Comorbidity Index, anesthesiologists, and functional status). RESULTS:Of the 976 breast cancer patients, 632 patients underwent breast cancer surgery with desflurane anesthesia, while 344 received propofol anesthesia. After propensity scoring, 592 patients remained in the desflurane group and 296 patients in the propofol group. The mortality rate was similar in the desflurane (38 deaths, 4%) and propofol (22 deaths, 4%; p = 0.812) groups in 5-year follow-up. The crude hazard ratio (HR) for all patients was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.92, p = 0.646). No significant difference in the locoregional recurrence or overall 5-year survival rates were found after breast surgery using desflurane or propofol anesthesia (p = 0.454). Propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated similar outcomes in both groups. Patients who received propofol anesthesia had a higher mortality rate than those who received desflurane anesthesia in the matched groups (7% vs 6%, respectively) without significant difference (p = 0.561). In the propensity score-matched analyses, univariable analysis showed an insignificant finding (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.72-2.11, p = 0.449). After adjustment for the time since the earliest included patient, the HR remained insignificant (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.70-2.16, p = 0.475). CONCLUSION:In our non-randomized retrospective analysis, neither propofol nor desflurane anesthesia for breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon can affect patient prognosis and survival. The influence of propofol anesthesia on breast cancer outcome requires further investigation

Comparison of Anesthesia-Controlled Operating Room Time between Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Desflurane Anesthesia in Open Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Study.

We conducted a retrospective study to investigate the anesthesia-controlled time and factors that contribute to prolonged extubation in open colorectal surgery. Using our hospital database, demographic data, various time intervals (waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, emergence time, exit from operating room after extubation, total operating room time, and post-anesthesia care unit stay time), and incidence of prolonged extubation (≥ 15 mins), were compared between patients who received desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia via target-controlled infusion with fentanyl/propofol. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between variables that contributed to prolonged extubation. In conclusion, the anesthesia-controlled time was similar in desflurane anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for open colorectal surgery in our hospital. Surgical time greater than 210 minutes, as well as age, contributed to prolonged extubation

Confounding factors to predict the awakening effect-site concentration of propofol in target-controlled infusion based on propofol and fentanyl anesthesia.

We conducted a large retrospective study to investigate the confounding factors that predict Ce ROC under propofol-based TIVA with TCI. We recorded sex, age, height, weight, Ce LOC, Ce ROC, total propofol and fentanyl consumption dose, and anesthetic time. Simple linear regression models were used to identify potential predictors of Ce ROC, and multiple linear regression models were used to identify the confounding predictors of Ce ROC. We found that Ce ROC correlated with age, sex, Ce LOC, and both total fentanyl and propofol consumption dose. The prediction formula was: Ce ROC = 0.87 - 0.06 × age + 0.18 × Ce LOC + 0.04 (if fentanyl consumption > 150 μg; if not, ignore this value) + 0.07 × (1 or 2, according to the total propofol consumption dose, 1 for a propofol amount 1000-2000 mg and 2 for a propofol amount > 2000 mg). We simplified the formula further as Ce ROC = 0.87 - 0.06 × age + 0.18 × Ce LOC. In conclusion, Ce ROC can be predicted under TCI with propofol- and fentanyl-based TIVA. The confounding factors that predicted propofol Ce ROC are age, sex, Ce LOC, and total consumption dose of propofol and fentanyl

Regression coefficient (β) and coefficient of determination (R²) against the return of consciousness of effective concentration of propofol (Ce_ROC) (n = 794).

<p>Regression coefficient (β) and coefficient of determination (R²) against the return of consciousness of effective concentration of propofol (Ce_ROC) (n = 794).</p

Linear regression between Ce_ROC and consumption of fentanyl in 794 patients.

<p>Statistically significant correlation (R² = 0.04; <i>p</i> < 0.01) and positive slope.</p