BACKGROUND: Chemotherapeutic stop-flow perfusion is a new investigational treat- ment for locally advanced cancers that is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA), and, less frequently, under spinal anesthesia (SA). We designed this clinical trial to compare the clinical profiles of GA and SA for stop-flow perfusion. METHODS: Anesthesia and recovery times, scores on visual analog scales for post- operative pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and admission to the postanesthesia care unit were measured in 40 cancer patients who randomly received either GA with propofol, nitrous oxide/sevoflurane, and fentanyl, or SA with bupivacaine hydrochloride for lower limb or pelvic stop-flow perfusion. RESULTS: GA and SA did not differ in times to achieve home readiness or patient satisfaction. Compared with GA, SA significantly (P 0.05) reduced anesthesia times (34 vs 16 min), postoperative visual analog scale scores for pain (5 vs 0) and nausea (8 vs 2), and the number of admissions to the postanesthesia care unit (9 vs 0). CONCLUSIONS:For stop-flow perfusion, GA and SA are both effective, but SA provides faster recovery, superior analgesia, and less postoperative nausea and vomiting in the immediate postoperative period.

Recovery profiles of general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia for chemotherapeutic perfusion with circulatory block (stop-flow perfusion).

CARRON, MICHELE;FREO, ULDERICO;ORI, CARLO
2007

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapeutic stop-flow perfusion is a new investigational treat- ment for locally advanced cancers that is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA), and, less frequently, under spinal anesthesia (SA). We designed this clinical trial to compare the clinical profiles of GA and SA for stop-flow perfusion. METHODS: Anesthesia and recovery times, scores on visual analog scales for post- operative pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and admission to the postanesthesia care unit were measured in 40 cancer patients who randomly received either GA with propofol, nitrous oxide/sevoflurane, and fentanyl, or SA with bupivacaine hydrochloride for lower limb or pelvic stop-flow perfusion. RESULTS: GA and SA did not differ in times to achieve home readiness or patient satisfaction. Compared with GA, SA significantly (P 0.05) reduced anesthesia times (34 vs 16 min), postoperative visual analog scale scores for pain (5 vs 0) and nausea (8 vs 2), and the number of admissions to the postanesthesia care unit (9 vs 0). CONCLUSIONS:For stop-flow perfusion, GA and SA are both effective, but SA provides faster recovery, superior analgesia, and less postoperative nausea and vomiting in the immediate postoperative period.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11577/2449641
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact