No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Opioid-free mastectomy under thoracic epidural anesthesia-analgesia in a patient with critical tracheal stenosis: a case report
Abstract
Mastectomy is traditionally performed under general anaesthesia and invasive ventilation, and is often complemented with regional techniques. In this setting, tracheal stenosis can pose a challenge to airway management. The aim of this report is to describe the successful management of a 68-year-old woman with severe subglottic tracheal stenosis undergoing mastectomy due to breast cancer. Surgery was performed without airway instrumentation under an opioid-free regimen consisting of thoracic epidural, propofol and dexmedetomidine perfusion, and non-opioid analgesics. Spontaneous ventilation and adequate perioperative analgesia were achieved. Opioid-free anaesthesia without airway instrumentation, consisting of thoracic epidural anaesthesia and sedation, is a good alternative in patients undergoing mastectomy in whom airway manipulation is best avoided.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background:
Patients with achondroplasia have various airway deformations and spinal anatomic abnormalities; therefore, performing general anesthesia and neuraxial anesthesia in such patients can be challenging.
Case presentation:
A 56-year-old, 112-cm, 30-kg woman was scheduled to undergo partial mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy for cancer of the right breast. She had short limbs, scoliosis, thorax deformation, and chronic moderate to severe mitral regurgitation of the mitral valve. We performed pectoral nerve II block and transversus thoracic muscle plane block and administered intravenous dexmedetomidine. The surgery was completed without the administration of any additional analgesics or sedatives.
Conclusions:
We successfully performed breast surgery using pectoral nerve II block, transversus thoracic muscle plane block, and sedation with dexmedetomidine in a patient with achondroplasia. We found that the combination of peripheral nerve blocks is a useful option in patients who have difficulties with both general anesthesia and neuraxial anesthesia.
Background and Aims
Opioids are associated with postoperative nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, and increased analgesic requirement. A nonopioid anesthesia technique may reduce morbidity, enable day care surgery, and possibly decrease tumor recurrence. We compared opioid-free, nerve block-based anesthesia with opioid-based general anesthesia for breast cancer surgery in a prospective cohort study.
Material and Methods
Twenty four adult American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I–III patients posted for modified radical mastectomy (MRM) with axillary dissection were induced with propofol and maintained on isoflurane (0.8–1.0 minimum alveolar concentration) through i-gel on spontaneous ventilation and administered ultrasound-guided PECS 1 and 2 blocks (0.1% lignocaine + 0.25% bupivacaine + 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine, 30 ml). Postoperative nausea, pain scores, nonopioid analgesic requirement over 24 h, stay in the recovery room, and satisfaction of surgeon and patient were studied. Twenty-four patients who underwent MRM and axillary dissection without a nerve block under routine opioid anesthesia with controlled ventilation were the controls.
Results
MRM and axillary dissection under the nonopioid technique was adequate in all patients. Time in the recovery room, postoperative nausea, analgesic requirement, and visual analog scale scores were all significantly less in the nonopioid group. Surgeon and patient were satisfied with good patient quality of life on day 7.
Conclusion
Nonopioid nerve block technique is adequate and safe for MRM with axillary clearance. Compared to conventional technique, it offers lesser morbidity and may allow for earlier discharge. Larger studies are needed to assess the long-term impact on chronic pain and tumor recurrence by nonopioid techniques.
Acute postoperative pain following radical mastectomy is a high risk for prolonged convalescence and potential persistent pain in patients with breast cancer. The present study was designed to observe the effect of intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine on acute postoperative pain following radical mastectomy under general anesthesia. Forty-five patients were enrolled into the study and divided into two groups that were maintained with propofol/remifentanil/Ringer's solution or propofol/remifentanil/Dexmedetomidine followed by morphine-based patient-controlled analgesia. During the first 24 h following surgery, patients receiving dexmedetomine had lower NRS pain scores, decreased morphine consumption, longer time to first morphine request as well as a trending decreased incidence of adverse effects when compared to those received Ringer's solution. In conclusion, the present study finds that intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine could promote analgesic property of postoperative morphine.
BackgroudAlthough propofol and dexmedetomidine have been widely used for monitored anesthesia care, their adverse effects necessitate the search for better methods. Therefore, we performed this randomized controlled trial to evaluate the combined use of propofol and dexmedetomidine. Methods
Eighty-seven adult patients undergoing hand surgery under brachial plexus block were randomly allocated to receive 1.6 μg/ml of the target effect site concentration of propofol (P group) and infusion of 0.4 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine following a loading dose of 1.0 μg/kg for 10 min (D group). The M group received a half-dose of both drugs simultaneously. The maintenance dose was adjusted to maintain an Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3. Cardiorespiratory variables, adverse effects, and drug efficacy were observed. ResultsThe significantly higher mean arterial pressure (mmHg) in the D group [P group 86.9 (12.6), D group 96.0 (12.2), M group 85.6 (10.6), p = 0.004)] and a significantly higher heart rate (beat/min) in the P group were observed [P group 67.3 (9.0), D group 57.8 (6.9), M group 59.2 (7.4), p < 0.001)]. The M group had a significant lower incidence of airway obstruction (p < 0.001) and the D group had a higher incidence of bradycardia requiring atropine (p = 0.001). The P group had higher incidences of hypoxia (p = 0.001), spontaneous movement (p < 0.001) and agitation (p = 0.001). The satisfaction scores of the patients (p = 0.007) and surgeon (p < 0.001) were higher in the M group. Onset time was significantly longer in the D group (p < 0.001). Conclusions
The combined use of propofol and dexmedetomidine provided cardiovascular stability with decreased adverse effects. Additionally, it led to a similar onset time of propofol and achieved higher satisfaction scores. Trial registrationKCT0001284. Retrospectively registered 25 November 2014.
We present here a 4 year old child with severe tracheal stenosis and respiratory failure. The patient was not responding to conventional ventilation settings and had significant hypercarbia. The difficulty in mechanical ventilation was handled successfully with specific ventilatory strategy: use of low respiratory rate, long inspiratory time and normal inspiratory time: expiratory time ratio. Thereafter the child was managed surgically and the stenosis was corrected. The child was discharged after a Montgomery T-tube placement.
Background:
Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women. Surgical removal of the cancer is the mainstay of treatment; however, tumour handling during surgery can cause microscopic dissemination of tumour cells and disease recurrence. The body's hormonal response to surgery (stress response) and general anaesthesia may suppress immunity, promoting tumour dissemination. Paravertebral anaesthesia numbs the site of surgery, provides good analgesia, and blunts the stress response, minimising the need for general anaesthesia.
Objectives:
To assess the effects of paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation compared to general anaesthesia in women undergoing breast cancer surgery, with important outcomes of quality of recovery, postoperative pain at rest, and mortality.
Search methods:
On 6 April 2020, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG); CENTRAL (latest issue), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (via OvidSP); Embase (via OvidSP); the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal; and ClinicalTrials.gov for all prospectively registered and ongoing trials.
Selection criteria:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult women undergoing breast cancer surgery in which paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation was compared to general anaesthesia. We did not include studies in which paravertebral anaesthesia was given as an adjunct to general anaesthesia and then this was compared to use of general anaesthesia.
Data collection and analysis:
Two review authors independently extracted details of trial methods and outcome data from eligible trials. When data could be pooled, analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the random-effects model was used if there was heterogeneity. When data could not be pooled, the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) approach was applied. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
Main results:
Nine studies (614 participants) were included in the review. All were RCTs of parallel design, wherein female patients aged > 18 years underwent breast cancer surgery under paravertebral anaesthesia or general anaesthesia. None of the studies assessed quality of recovery in the first three postoperative days using a validated questionnaire; most assessed factors affecting quality of recovery such as postoperative analgesic use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hospital stay, ambulation, and patient satisfaction. Paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce the 24-hour postoperative analgesic requirement (odds ratio (OR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.34; 5 studies, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to general anaesthesia. Heterogeneity (I² = 70%) was attributed to the fixed dose of opioids and non-steroidal analgesics administered postoperatively in one study (70 participants), masking a difference in analgesic requirements between groups. Paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces the incidence of PONV (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30; 6 studies, 324 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), probably results in a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -79.39 minutes, 95% CI -107.38 to -51.40; 3 studies, 174 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces time to ambulation compared to general anaesthesia (SWiM analysis): percentages indicate vote counting based on direction of effect (100%, 95% CI 51.01% to 100%; P = 0.125; 4 studies, 375 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Paravertebral anaesthesia probably results in higher patient satisfaction (MD 5.52 points, 95% CI 1.30 to 9.75; 3 studies, 129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) on a 0 to 100 scale 24 hours postoperatively compared to general anaesthesia. Postoperative pain at rest and on movement was assessed at 2, 6, and 24 postoperative hours on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS). Four studies (224 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia as compared to general anaesthesia probably reduced pain at 2 postoperative hours (MD -2.95, 95% CI -3.37 to -2.54; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (324 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 6 hours postoperatively (MD -1.54, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.11; low-certainty evidence). Five studies (278 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 24 hours postoperatively (MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.10; low-certainty evidence). Differences in the methods of two studies (119 participants) and addition of clonidine to the local anaesthetic in two studies (109 participants), respectively, contributed to the heterogeneity (I² = 96%) observed for these two outcomes. Two studies (130 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain on movement at 6 hours (MD-2.57, 95% CI -3.97 to -1.17) and at 24 hours (MD -2.12, 95% CI -4.80 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity (I² = 96%) was observed for both outcomes and could be due to methodological differences between studies. None of the studies reported mortality related to the anaesthetic technique. Eight studies (574 participants) evaluated adverse outcomes with paravertebral anaesthesia: epidural spread (0.7%), minor bleeding (1.4%), pleural puncture not associated with pneumothorax (0.3%), and Horner's syndrome (7.1%). These complications were self-limiting and resolved without treatment. No data are available on disease-free survival, chronic pain, and quality of life. Blinding of personnel or participants was not possible in any study, as a regional anaesthetic technique was compared to general anaesthesia. Risk of bias was judged to be serious, as seven studies had concerns of selection bias and three of detection bias.
Authors' conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence shows that paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces PONV, hospital stay, postoperative pain (at 2 hours), and time to ambulation and results in greater patient satisfaction on the first postoperative day compared to general anaesthesia. Paravertebral anaesthesia may also reduce postoperative analgesic use and postoperative pain at 6 and 24 hours at rest and on movement based on low-certainty evidence. However, RCTs using validated questionnaires are needed to confirm these results. Adverse events observed with paravertebral anaesthesia are rare.
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of paravertebral block with or without sedation compared to general anaesthesia in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.
Thoracic epidural block is frequently used for esthetic breast surgeries but reports of its use in mastectomies with axillary exploration are very rare. The present study compared this technique with general anesthesia in oncologic surgeries of the breasts.
Forty patients were divided in two groups. The epidural group (n = 20) underwent epidural thoracic block with bupivacaine and fentanyl associated with sedation with midazolam. The other group (n = 20) underwent conventional general anesthesia with propofol, atracurium, and fentanyl, and maintenance with O2 and isoflurane. Duration of the surgery, the need for intraoperative complementation of anesthesia or sedation, and intraoperative hemodynamic parameters were recorded. In the postoperative period, length of time until discharge from the recovery room and from the hospital, severity of pain, analgesic consumption, adverse effects, and satisfaction with the anesthetic techniques were recorded.
Both groups were similar and differences in the duration of the surgery were not observed. Complementary sedation was necessary in 100% of the patients who underwent epidural block and complementary sedation with infiltration of local anesthetic in the axilla in 15% of the patients in this group. The rate of hypertension was more frequent in the group of patients who underwent general anesthesia, while hypotension was more frequent in the epidural group. Pruritus was observed in 55% of the patients in the epidural group. Nausea (30%) and vomiting (45%) were more frequent in the general anesthesia group. The quality of postoperative analgesia was better in the epidural group, which also presented lower consumption of analgesics; the length hospitalization in this group was also lower.
Epidural block has some advantages when compared with general anesthesia and can be considered an anesthesia option in oncologic mastectomies with axillary lymph node dissection.
Studies of regional anesthesia are increasing in popularity not only for the purpose of technical advancement, but also to better understand the effects of neural deafferentation on the function of various organs. Thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) is one of the most versatile and widely utilized neural deafferentation techniques. The aim of this article is to critically review published data regarding the most relevant effects of TEA on the cardiovascular, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. In the cardiovascular system, TEA modifies the electrical activity of the heart in addition to ventricular function and wall motion. Improvements in regional blood flow and a reduction of the major determinants of cardiac oxygen consumption lead to less severity of the ischemic injury. Although TEA negatively affects the performance of intercostal muscles, it spares diaphragmatic function and, when it is limited to the first five thoracic segments, affects pulmonary volumes to a lesser extent. TEA can be safely used in patients with compromised respiration. Splanchnic sympathetic block is achieved when thoracic fibers from T5 to T12 are affected in a dose-dependent manner. Improved gastrointestinal blood flow and motility are clear in animals, and in clinical studies, TEA has been shown to improve recovery after major abdominal surgery. TEA thus presents a powerful tool available to anesthesiologists for perioperative intervention, but its use alone cannot prevent postoperative morbidity and mortality. It is therefore necessary to address its use in the context of multimodal intervention.