JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Anesth Analg 2007; 105:1500-1503
© 2007 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000281051.24740.93
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carron, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ori, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carron, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ori, C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Regional Anesthesia

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA

Recovery Profiles of General Anesthesia and Spinal Anesthesia for Chemotherapeutic Perfusion with Circulatory Block (Stop-Flow Perfusion)

Michele Carron, MD*, Ulderico Freo, MD*, Federico Innocente, MD*, Stefano Veronese, MD*, Pierluigi Pilati, MD{dagger}, Vesna Jevtovic-Todorovic, MD{ddagger}, and Carlo Ori, MD*

From the Departments of *Pharmacology and Anesthesiology and {dagger}Oncological and Surgical Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy; and {ddagger}Department of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Carlo Ori, MD, Institute of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Department of Pharmacology and Anesthesiology, University of Padova, Via C. Battisti 267, 35121 Padova, Italy. Address e-mail to carloori{at}unipd.it.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapeutic stop-flow perfusion is a new investigational treatment 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 postoperative 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.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2007 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.