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. 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). 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). 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.

Previous researches have shown that anesthesia can affect the outcomes of many kinds of cancer after surgery. Here, we investigated the association between anesthesia and patient outcomes after elective open intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma surgery. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective open intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma surgery between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia received, that is, propofol or desflurane anesthesia. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed and survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. After propensity matching, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor node metastasis staging and postoperative metastasis and recurrence. A total of 34 patients (21 deaths, 62.0%) with propofol anesthesia and 36 (31 deaths, 86.0%) with desflurane anesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 58 patients remained in each group. In the matched analysis, the propofol anesthesia had a better survival with hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.28–0.94, P = .032) compared with desflurane anesthesia. In addition, subgroup analyses showed that patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative metastases (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.15–0.88; P = .025), but not fewer postoperative recurrence formation (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.46–2.93; P = .746), than those under desflurane anesthesia in the matched groups. In a limited sample size, propofol anesthesia was associated with better survival in open intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma surgery. Prospective and large sample size researches are necessary to evaluate the effects of propofol anesthesia on the surgical outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma surgery.

Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques can influence the patient outcomes of cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between type of anesthetic and patient outcomes following elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery between January 2005 and July 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression. A total of 68 patients (56 deaths, 82.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 72 patients (43 deaths, 60.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. Fifty-eight patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.99; P = 0.047) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed significantly better cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40–0.97; P = 0.037) in the propofol group. Additionally, patients under propofol had less postoperative recurrence, but not fewer postoperative metastases formation, than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–0.90; P = 0.028) in the matched analysis. In a limited sample size, we observed that propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival in open pancreatic cancer surgery compared with desflurane anesthesia. Further investigations are needed to inspect the influences of propofol anesthesia on patient outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery.

Reducing anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) may improve operation room (OR) efficiency result from different anesthetic techniques. However, the information about the difference in ACT between desflurane (DES) anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques for open major upper abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) is not available in the literature. This retrospective study uses our hospital database to analyze the ACT of open major upper abdominal surgery without liver resection after either desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia or TIVA via target-controlled infusion with fentanyl/propofol from January 2010 to December 2011. The various time intervals including waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, extubation time, exit from OR after extubation, total OR time, and postanesthetic care unit (PACU) stay time and percentage of prolonged extubation (≥15 minutes) were compared between these 2 anesthetic techniques. We included data from 343 patients, with 159 patients receiving TIVA and 184 patients receiving DES. The only significant difference is extubation time, TIVA was faster than the DES group (8.5 ± 3.8 vs 9.4 ± 3.7 minutes; P = 0.04). The factors contributed to prolonged extubation were age, gender, body mass index, DES anesthesia, and anesthesia time. In our hospital, propofol-based TIVA by target-controlled infusion provides faster emergence compared with DES anesthesia; however, it did not improve OR efficiency in open major abdominal surgery. Older, male gender, higher body mass index, DES anesthesia, and lengthy anesthesia time were factors that contribute to extubation time.

Background: Thoracic epidural analgesia is the preferred method for postoperative analgesia following thoracic surgery. However, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) may be an effective alternative. This study was conducted because few scientific reports exist comparing fentanyl-based IVPCA including a low dose of ketamine (fk-IVPCA) with thoracic patient-controlled epidural analgesia (t-PCEA) for the treatment of postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). Methods: This prospective, and randomized study included 70 patients randomized into fk-IVPCA and t-PCEA groups. Pain at rest and during movement, successful and unsuccessful triggers after pressing the PCA device button, the need for rescue analgesia, drug-related adverse events, and patient satisfaction were recorded for 48 hours postoperatively. Results: No significant differences in the intensity of pain at rest or during movement were observed between the 2 groups within 48 hours postoperatively. The number of unsuccessful PCA triggers in the t-PCEA group 0 to 4 hours after surgery was significantly higher than that in the fk-IVPCA group. However, the numbers of successful PCA triggers in the fk-IVPCA group at 4 to 12 and 0 to 24 hours after surgery were significantly higher than those in the t-PCEA group. The incidence of analgesic-related side effects and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Compared with t-PCEA, the addition of a subanesthetic dose of ketamine to fentanyl-based IVPCA resulted in similar pain control after VATS with no increase in the incidence of drug-related adverse effects. The results confirm that both multimodal intravenous analgesia and epidural analgesia can provide sufficient pain control and are safe strategies for treating acute post-thoracotomy pain.