Serratus plane block with sedation for patients submitted to axillary dissection: a prospective case series.

Axillary dissection is a standard surgical procedure for stage III skin and soft tissue tumors and is usually performed under general anesthesia. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of performing axillary dissection with Serratus muscle plane block plus intravenous sedation. Fifteen patients undergoing axillary dissection were prospectively recruited. The patients were evaluated during their pre-operative anesthetic appointment, during their procedure, and at post-operative days 1 and 30. The blockade was performed superficial to the Serratus muscle at the level of fourth rib. Sedation was performed using propofol, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and S-ketamine. None of the patients required conversion to general anesthesia. Surgeons showed a highly positive response when asked about the anesthetic technique, and most of them found the technique "indistinguishable" from general anesthesia. The median (interquartile range) pain scores at rest over all time frames was 0 (0-0). Furthermore, no patients developed nausea, hemodynamic instability, or any complications associated with the technique. The Serratus plane block associated with intravenous sedation proved feasible for axillary lymphadenectomy, however, further clinical trials should evaluate potential advantages compared to other techniques.

Serratus plane block with sedation for patients submitted to axillary dissection: a prospective case series / Bloqueio do plano do músculo serrátil guiado por ultrassonografia associado à sedação venosa como técnica anestésica em cirurgia de linfadenectomia axilar: uma série de casos prospectiva

ABSTRACT Axillary dissection is a standard surgical procedure for stage III skin and soft tissue tumors and is usually performed under general anesthesia. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of performing axillary dissection with Serratus muscle plane block plus intravenous sedation. Fifteen patients undergoing axillary dissection were prospectively recruited. The patients were evaluated during their pre-operative anesthetic appointment, during their procedure, and at post-operative days 1 and 30. The blockade was performed superficial to the Serratus muscle at the level of fourth rib. Sedation was performed using propofol, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and S-ketamine. None of the patients required conversion to general anesthesia. Surgeons showed a highly positive response when asked about the anesthetic technique, and most of them found the technique "indistinguishable" from general anesthesia. The median (interquartile range) pain scores at rest over all time frames was 0 (0-0). Furthermore, no patients developed nausea, hemodynamic instability, or any complications associated with the technique. The Serratus plane block associated with intravenous sedation proved feasible for axillary lymphadenectomy, however, further clinical trials should evaluate potential advantages compared to other techniques.

RESUMO A linfadenectomia axilar é um procedimento cirúrgico padrão para tratamento de tumores de pele e partes moles no estádio III e usualmente é realizada sob anestesia geral. A presente serie de casos prospectiva tem por objetivo investigar a viabilidade da realização da linfadenectomia axilar com o uso do bloqueio do plano do músculo serrátil anterior associado a sedação endovenosa. Foram incluídos 15 pacientes no estudo. Os participantes foram recrutados e avaliados durante consulta pré-anestésica ambulatorial, acompanhados durante o dia da cirurgia, no primeiro e no trigésimo dias de pós-operatório. O bloqueio foi realizado anterior ao músculo serrátil anterior ao nível da quarta costela na linha axilar média. A sedação foi realizada com o uso de propofol, fentanil, dexmedetomidina e dextrocetamina. Não houve necessidade de conversão para anestesia geral em nenhum paciente. Os cirurgiões apresentaram resposta altamente positiva quando questionados sobre a técnica anestésica, considerando na maior parte dos casos "indistinguível" da anestesia geral. A mediana (intervalo interquartil) da dor em repouso em todos os momentos avaliados foi 0 (0-0). Além disso, nenhum paciente desenvolveu náuseas, vômitos, instabilidade hemodinâmica ou qualquer complicação relacionada à técnica empregada. O bloqueio do plano do músculo Serrátil anterior associado a sedação venosa se mostrou viável para execução de linfadenectomia axilar, entretanto ensaios clínicos adicionais são necessários para avaliar potenciais vantagens em comparação com outras técnicas.

General anaesthesia versus other types of anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery for treatment of cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

General and local anaesthetics alter tumour behaviour in experimental models. Objectives: To investigate the relationship between general anaesthesia and recurrence or survival in patients who received surgery for malignant melanoma. A meta-analysis was performed based on a comprehensive literature search. Controlled and observational studies of patients undergoing surgery for melanoma under general anaesthesia, compared with other types of anaesthesia, were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival and disease-free survival. The secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival, cost analysis, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. Individual study information was summarized. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The GRADE approach was used to summarise the certainty of evidence. Eight studies were included (n = 5,832). The use of general anaesthesia was not associated with any statistical difference in overall survival (p = 0.087; 1 NRS; n= 104; very low certainty of evidence) or disease-free survival (HR: 1.266; 95% CI: 0.904-1.773; p = 0.169; 1 NRS; n = 281; very low certainty of evidence). However, general anaesthesia was associated with worse melanoma-specific survival (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.22-1.68: p < 0.00001; 3 NRS; n = 4654; low certainty of evidence). Three studies reported increased intraoperative costs associated with the use of general anaesthesia (3 NRT; n = 513; very low certainty of evidence). No study adequately reported other primary or secondary outcomes. General anaesthesia may reduce melanoma-specific survival in patients undergoing surgery for treatment of cutaneous melanoma. We are uncertain whether general anaesthesia impacts the other reported outcomes.

Impact of general anaesthesia in overall and disease-free survival compared to other types of anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery for cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cutaneous melanoma is an aggressive type of skin cancer. Anaesthetic agents may have an impact on the immune response, postoperative neurohumoral response and tumour progression. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of general anaesthesia on overall and disease-free survival compared with other types anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery for cutaneous melanoma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will analyse data from controlled and observational studies of patients undergoing surgery for melanoma under general anaesthesia compared with other types of anaesthesia. The primary outcomes are overall survival and disease-free survival. The secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, time to tumour progression, distant disease-free survival, time to treatment failure, cancer-specific survival, biochemical recurrence, return of intended oncological therapy, days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days, cost analysis and adverse events. A comprehensive literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS and IBECS databases. Grey literature will also be searched. Risk of methodological bias will be assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB 2.0) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility of studies and risk of bias; a third author will solve discrepancies. One author will perform data extraction and the other will check the process and data. Qualitative analysis will be carried out using all included studies. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model for pooled risk estimates will be carried out for the two main outcomes and for selected secondary outcomes if they conform to previously stated criteria. The GRADE approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as we analyse data from previously reported studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018114918.