Previous studies have demonstrated that anesthetic techniques can affect the outcomes of cancer surgery. We investigated the association between anesthetic techniques and patient outcomes after elective limb-salvage surgery for osteosarcoma (OS). This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent elective limb-salvage surgery for OS between January 2007 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the administration of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or desflurane (DES) anesthesia. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed, and survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to compare the hazard ratios (HRs) for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were done for postoperative recurrence, metastasis, and tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) staging. A total of 30 patients (17 deaths, 56.7%) who received DES anesthesia and 26 (4 deaths, 15.4%) who received TIVA were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 22 patients were included in each group. In the matched analysis, patients who received TIVA had better survival with a HR of 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.81; P = .018). Subgroup analyses also showed significantly better survival in the presence of postoperative metastasis (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06–0.87; P = .030) and with TNM stage II to III (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09–0.73; P = .011) in the matched TIVA group. In addition, patients administered with TIVA had lower risks of postoperative recurrence and metastasis than those administered with DES anesthesia in the matched analyses. Propofol-based TIVA was associated with better survival in patients who underwent elective limb-salvage surgery for OS than DES anesthesia. Prospective studies are needed to assess the effects of TIVA on oncological outcomes in patients with OS.

This study aimed to evaluate the different clinical results and factors associated with cartilage defects in military draftees who underwent different treatments after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Overall, 105 patients who had sustained ACL rupture were military draftees who underwent a conscription examination for physical status assessment from January 2012 to December 2020. Patients were divided into three groups: conservative treatment after ACL rupture, status post-anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but graft rupture, and status post-ACLR with graft intact. Inter-group comparisons and statistical analyses were performed for age, body mass index (BMI), thigh circumference difference, side-to-side difference in anterior knee translation by KT-2000, meniscus tear, and cartilage defect. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with cartilage defects. The multivariable regression model showed that BMI (odds ratio OR: 1.303; 95% CI: 1.016–1.672; p = 0.037), thigh circumference difference (OR: 1.403; 95% CI: 1.003–1.084; p = 0.034), tear of lateral meniscus (LM) and medial meniscus (MM) (OR: 13.773; 95% CI: 1.354–140.09; p = 0.027), and graft rupture group (OR: 5.191; 95% CI: 1.388–19.419; p = 0.014) increased the risk of cartilage defects. There was no correlation between cartilage defects and age, KT-2000 difference, tear of LM or MM, or graft intact group. Progression of osteoarthritis was concerned after ACL rupture, and this study identified several factors of post-ACLR graft rupture, greater thigh circumference difference, BMI, and meniscus tear of both LM and MM affecting cartilage defects, which represent early degenerative osteoarthritis changes of the knee. The results of this study should be customized for rehabilitation and military training, especially in military draftees with ACL injuries.

Background: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is often performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) using a combination of propofol and remifentanil. However, the effects of different remifentanil effect-site concentrations (Ce) combined with propofol on perioperative outcomes in this procedure have not been reported. Methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled study, 80 patients scheduled for single-level PVP under MAC were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to receive propofol (Ce: 2.0 mcg/mL) combined with either a low (1.0 ng/mL; Group 1) or high (2.0 ng/mL; Group 2) remifentanil Ce. The primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative patient movement; secondary outcomes included hemodynamic stability, perioperative adverse events, anesthetic consumption, frequency of dose adjustments, postoperative recovery, and anesthesia satisfaction. Results: Group 2 exhibited significantly fewer episodes of patient movement during the procedure and better intraoperative hemodynamic stability. Additionally, fewer upward adjustments in remifentanil infusion were observed in Group 2. Although the total propofol consumption was similar between the groups, Group 2 required a significantly lower propofol Ce to achieve adequate sedation. Surgeon satisfaction with anesthesia was also significantly higher in Group 2. Conclusions: Using a higher remifentanil Ce (2.0 ng/mL) in combination with propofol during PVP under MAC reduces patient movement and improves intraoperative hemodynamic stability without increasing adverse events. This regimen may thereby enhance procedural efficiency and surgeon satisfaction during vertebral interventions.