3.8 Article

Anesthetic Choices and Breast Cancer Recurrence A Retrospective Pilot Study of Patient, Disease, and Treatment Factors

期刊

CRITICAL CARE NURSING QUARTERLY
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 200-210

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000062

关键词

anesthesia techniques; breast carcinoma; cancer recurrence; obesity; outpatient surgery

资金

  1. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists Foundation
  2. Elizabeth W. Quinn Oncology Research Award from UTHealth Center for Nursing Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this work was to investigate differences in patient, disease, and treatment factors between women who received outpatient surgical treatment of breast cancer with paravertebral and general anesthesia compared with women who received general anesthesia alone. A total of 358 patients with stage 0-III disease received a partial or total mastectomy without axillary node dissection at a large academic cancer center. Study median follow-up time was 28.8 months. Patient demographic characteristics were equally represented across anesthesia groups. Mean body mass index (kg/m(2)) was greater in those who received general anesthesia alone (mean = 29, SD = 6.8) than in those who received paravertebral regional block with general anesthesia (mean = 28, SD = 5.1) (P =.001). The paravertebral regional block with general anesthesia group contained advanced stages of disease (P =.01) and had longer surgical procedures (P =.01) than the general anesthesia alone group. Breast cancer recurrence was detected in 1.7% of the study population (paravertebral regional block with general anesthesia: n = 4; and general anesthesia alone: n = 2). Overall, no association between anesthesia type and recurrence was detected (P =.53), with an unadjusted estimated hazard ratio of 1.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-10.08). The overall rate of recurrence was very small in this population. A larger study is needed to detect significant differences in rates of recurrence attributable to type of anesthesia.

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

3.8
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