Can regional anesthesia and analgesia prolong cancer survival after orthopaedic oncologic surgery?

BACKGROUND: The perioperative period of major oncologic surgery is characterized by immunosuppression, angiogenesis, and an increased load of circulating malignant cells. It is a window period in which cancer cells may seed, invade, and proliferate. Thus, it has been hypothesized that the use of regional anesthesia with the goal of reducing surgical stress and opioid and volatile anesthetic consumption would avoid perioperative immune suppression and angiogenesis and ultimately cancer recurrence. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a systematic review of the literature on the use of regional anesthesia and postoperative analgesia to improve cancer-related survival after oncologic surgery. Our primary topic of interest is survival after orthopaedic oncologic surgery, but because that literature is limited, we also have systematically reviewed the question of survival after breast, gastrointestinal, and genitourologic cancers. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases with the search terms: "anesthesia and analgesia", "local neoplasm recurrence", "cancer recurrence", "loco-regional neoplasm recurrence", "disease-free survival", and "cumulative survival rates". Our initial search of the two databases provided 836 studies of which 693 were rejected. Of the remaining 143 studies, only 13 articles qualified for inclusion in this systematic review, based on defined inclusion criteria. All these studies had retrospective design. Due to the high heterogeneity among the identified studies and the complete absence of randomized controlled trials from the literature on this topic, the results of a meta-analysis would be heavily confounded; hence, we instead performed a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: No eligible studies addressed the question of whether regional anesthesia and analgesia have an impact on survival after musculoskeletal cancer surgery. Only one relevant clinical study was identified on regional breast cancer survival; it suggested a benefit. The literature on gastrointestinal and genitourinary surgery was larger but mixed, although some preliminary studies do suggest a benefit of regional anesthesia on survival after oncologic surgery in those patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Although basic science studies suggest a potential benefit of regional anesthesia and stress response reduction in cancer formation, we found little clinical evidence to support the theory that regional anesthesia and analgesia improve overall patient survival after oncologic surgery.

[Identifying and prioritising adverse episodes and failures related to patient safety in Pain Treatment Units]. / Identificación y priorización de episodios adversos y fallos relacionados con la seguridad del paciente en las Unidades de Tratamiento del Dolor.

OBJECTIVES: An expert group coordinated by the Andalusian School of Public Health identified the most serious and frequent adverse events in Pain Treatment Units (PTU), as well the failures and underlying causes, as a prior step to preparing preventive actions. The aims of the project were to identify potential adverse events in Pain Treatment Units, identify failures and their underlying causes, and prioritise these failures according to a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) tool. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The method employed consisted of a literature search, the selection of an expert group with experience in PTU, creating a catalogue of adverse events using the generation of ideas technique, and putting the FMEA and Risk Priority Index tools into practice. RESULTS: Up to 66 types of adverse events were identified associated with; medication (30), invasive techniques (15), care process (10), patient information and education (6), and clinical practice (5). It was found that up to 101 failures could be triggered by these adverse events, and that 242 causes could lead to these failures. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated the need to work principally in two directions, improving the care process in the PTU (the health care organisation), and the professional work, this latter having two aspects, improving the clinical practice, and increase professional skills by means of specific training. Communication, whether inter-professional or inter-department, or with the patient and their family, is identified as a key aspect for improvement.

The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology.

Anaesthesiology, which includes anaesthesia, perioperative care, intensive care medicine, pain therapy and emergency medicine, has always participated in systematic attempts to improve patient safety. Anaesthesiologists have a unique, cross-specialty opportunity to influence the safety and quality of patient care. Past achievements have allowed our specialty a perception that it has become safe, but there should be no room for complacency when there is more to be done. Increasingly older and sicker patients, more complex surgical interventions, more pressure on throughput, new drugs and devices and simple chance all pose hazards in the work of anaesthesiologists. In response to this increasingly difficult and complex working environment, the European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA), in cooperation with the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA), has produced a blueprint for patient safety in anaesthesiology. This document, to be known as the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, was endorsed by these two bodies together with the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA), and the European Patients' Federation (EPF) at the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki in June 2010. The Declaration represents a shared European view of that which is worthy, achievable, and needed to improve patient safety in anaesthesiology in 2010. The Declaration recommends practical steps that all anaesthesiologists who are not already using them can successfully include in their own clinical practice. In parallel, EBA and ESA have launched a joint patient safety task-force in order to put these recommendations into practice. It is planned to review this Declaration document regularly.

The role of elastomeric pumps in postoperative analgesia in orthopaedics and factors affecting their flow rate.

Elastomeric pumps are mechanical devices composed of an elastomeric balloon reservoir into which the drug to be infused is stored, a protective casing (used by some manufacturers), a flow controller and a wound catheter. In orthopaedics they are used to provide continuous local infiltration analgesia. In this way patients rely less on other routes of analgesia and thus avoid their systemic side effects. Studies have shown good response to analgesia with these pumps for the first 24 hours but their benefit is not as clear at 48 and 72 hours. There are numerous factors that affect the flow rate of elastomeric pumps. Some are inherent to all elastomeric pumps such as: the pressure exerted by the elastomeric balloon, catheter size, the vertical height of the pump in relation to the wound, viscosity and partial filling. There are also other factors which vary according to the manufacturer such as: the optimal temperature to obtain the desired flow rate as this directly affects viscosity, the dialysate that the analgesic drug is mixed with (ie normal saline or 5% dextrose), and the storage conditions of the fluid to be infused. It is thus essential to follow the clinical guidelines provided by the manufacturer in order to obtain the desired flow rate.

The Impact of Paravertebral Block Analgesia on Breast Cancer Survival After Surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The impact of regional anesthesia on breast cancer recurrence is controversial. We tested the hypothesis that the use of paravertebral block (PVB) analgesia during breast cancer surgery prolongs the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of women with breast cancer. METHODS: Seven hundred ninety-two women with nonmetastatic breast cancer were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided based on the administration of PVB analgesia for mastectomy surgeries. One hundred ninety-eight (25%) were given a PVB, the remainder were treated with opioid-based analgesia. Propensity score matching was developed using several variables. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the impact of PVB analgesia on RFS and OS. RESULTS: The median follow-up times for RFS and OS were 5.8 and 6 years, respectively. In the propensity score matching model, a total of 396 women were included in each group of treatment (non-PVB group, n = 198 vs PVB group, n = 198). As expected, the fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in PVB (122.8 ± 77.85 µg) patients than non-PVB subjects (402.23 ± 343.8 µg). Other variables were not statistically significant. After adjusting for several important covariates, the analysis indicated that the use of PVB is not associated with a significant change in RFS [1.60 (0.81-3.16), P = 0.172] or OS [1.28 (0.55-3.01)] survival. DISCUSSION: This retrospective study does not support the hypothesis that the use of regional analgesia is associated with longer survival after surgery for breast cancer.

The Effects of Perioperative Regional Anesthesia and Analgesia on Cancer Recurrence and Survival After Oncology Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Potentially, perioperative regional anesthesia and analgesia (RA) could influence the outcomes of patients with cancer. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of perioperative RA on survival and cancer recurrence after oncologic surgery. METHODS: The authors searched computerized databases (from inception to December 2014) and reference lists and considered all studies comparing the effects of RA on cancer recurrence or overall survival with that of general anesthesia (GA). Risk estimates were pooled to determine the effects of RA on risks of cancer recurrence and mortality. Twenty eligible studies were included. RESULTS: Perioperative RA use was associated with improved overall survival (Hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.75 - 0.94; I =41%), but not with reduced cancer recurrence (HR=0.91, 95% CI, 0.70 - 1.18; I=83%). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that RA may improve overall survival but not reduce cancer recurrence after oncologic surgery.