4.5 Article

Effect of thoracic paraspinal block-propofol intravenous general anesthesia on VEGF and TGF-β in patients receiving radical resection of lung cancer

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 98, 期 47, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018088

关键词

lung cancer; propofol; TGF-beta; thoracic paraspinal nerve block; VEGF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study is to compare the effects of paravertebral nerve block-propofol intravenous general anesthesia (PPA) and sevoflurane inhalation general anesthesia (SGA) on the expression of serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) in patients undergoing radical resection of lung cancer. Patients undergoing radical resection of lung cancer were divided into PPA group and SGA group. In PPA group, thoracic paraspinal nerve block was performed with 0.5% ropivacaine (2 mg/kg) before general anesthesia. Anesthesia was maintained with 2.5-3.5 mu g/mL TCI of propofol. In SGA group, anesthesia was maintained with 1.0-1.5 MAC sevoflurane. The dosage of opioids during and 24 h after operation, the pain score at 2, 8, 24, 48, and 72 h after operation, and the concentrations of serum VEGF and TGF-beta before and 24 h after operation were observed in the two groups. The intraoperative dosage of remifentanil in PPA group was significantly less than that in SGA group (P < 0.05). The dosage of sufentanil in SGA group was significantly less than that in SGA group at 24 h after operation (P < 0.05). The VAS score at 2, 8, and 24 h after operation was significantly lower than that in SGA group (P < 0.05). The serum VEGF and TGF-beta concentration in PPA group was significantly lower than that in SGA group (P < 0.05). Thoracic paravertebral nerve block-propofol intravenous general anesthesia can reduce the dosage of opioids, improve the effect of postoperative analgesia, and reduce the serum concentration of tumor angiogenesis-related factors in patients undergoing radical resection of lung cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据