Why the study?
Does thoracic epidural anesthesia reduce adverse effects compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing awake thoracic surgery?
Does thoracic epidural anesthesia reduce adverse effects compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing awake thoracic surgery?
Thoracic epidural anesthesia for awake thoracic surgery shows encouraging early results and may help avoid the adverse effects of general anesthesia, particularly in high-risk patients such as those with COPD.
Hypothesis-generating for high-risk patients; leaves open randomized trials to define indications and compare outcomes with general anesthesia.
Despite the indisputable and well-known advantages of general anesthesia in thoracic surgery, this can trigger some adverse effects including an increased risk of pneumonia, impaired cardiac performance, neuromuscular problems, mechanical ventilation-induced injuries, which include barotrauma, volotrauma, atelectrauma, and biotrauma. In order to reduce the adverse effects of general anesthesia, thoracic epidural anesthesia has been recently employed to perform awake thoracic surgery procedures including coronary artery bypass, management of pneumothorax, resection of pulmonary nodules and solitary metastases, lung volume reduction surgery, and even transsternal thymectomy. The results achieved in this early series have been encouraging, although indications and many pathophysiologic aspects remain to be elucidated. In this review we have tried to provide a first-step analysis of the anecdotal reports available in the literature on this topic. We also desired to provide insights into the main physiologic effects of awake thoracic surgery with epidural anesthesia, with particular attention to the several issues raised by its application in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which can represent one of the most stimulating challenges in this setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tommaso Claudio Mineo (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: