Dataset Information

Anesthetics or anesthetic techniques and cancer surgical outcomes: a possible link.

ABSTRACT: As of 2018 cancer is responsible for almost 9.6 million deaths annually and, with an aging population, the incidence of cancer is expected to continue to rise. Surgery is an important treatment modality for patients with solid organ cancers. It has been postulated that, due to potentially overlapping processes underlying the development of malignancy and the therapeutic pathways of various anesthetic agents, the choice of anesthetic type and method of administration may affect post-operative outcomes in patients with cancer. This is a literature review of the most recent evidence extracted from various databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane, as well as journals and book reference lists. The review highlights the pathophysiological processes underpinning cancer development and the molecular actions of anesthetic agents, pre-clinical and retrospective studies investigating cancer and anesthetics, as well as ongoing clinical trials. Overall, there are conflicting results regarding the impact of regional vs. general anesthesia on cancer recurrence, whilst the majority of data suggest a benefit of the use of intravenous propofol over inhalational volatile anesthetics. The biological changes associated with the surgical inflammatory response offer a unique opportunity to intervene to counteract any potentially cancer-promoting effects.

SUBMITTER: Alam A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8175878 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDebate regarding effectiveness of surgical modalities contributes to a lack of consensus of decision making for surgical interventions. Furthermore, data regarding cost effectiveness, surgical operative time, resources, patient hospital stay and recovery is limited, particularly in the medium term for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The objective was to compare clinical outcomes following different fixation interventions treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsA retrospective cohort study using the British Spine Registry (BSR) of 1,838 patients aged ≥18 years. Five hundred and five patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and 1,333 undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with 6 months follow-up, were compared. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) [back and leg], quality of life, complications and cost effectiveness were analysed.ResultsNRS (back and leg) demonstrated a statistically significant difference favouring TLIF at 6 months (P=0.04) and (P<0.05) respectively. There was no difference in ODI improvement at 6 months between PLIF and TLIF (P=0.620), but there was a statistically significant difference in ODI scores preoperatively between PLIF and TLIF (P<0.001). EQ-5D-5L-Health VAS (P=0.136) and EQ-5D-5L (P=0.655) did not show a statistically significant difference in improvement between PLIF and TLIF. Dural tear was the most common complication and was higher in the PLIF group (5.7%) but not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss was greater for PLIF (P=0.041). Implant cost (P<0.001) was higher for TLIF whereas theatre time was higher for PLIF (P=0.031).ConclusionsBoth PLIF and TLIF result in clinically significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain and NRS leg pain, with superiority of TLIF for improvements in back and leg pain. Surgeons appeared to use ODI preoperatively to decide intervention with comparable improvements for both approaches. Average theatre time and blood loss volume was higher for PLIF. Factors like implant costs and costs of consumables were higher for TLIF. Costs merit further evaluation.

Dataset Information

Anesthetics or anesthetic techniques and cancer surgical outcomes: a possible link.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets