• D P O'Toole and A J Cunningham.
• Department of Anaesthesia, University College Hospital, Galway, Ireland.
• Yale J Biol Med. 1993 Sep 1;66(5):447-56.

AbstractThe relative merits of general vs regional anesthesia for patients undergoing major vascular surgery has been the subject of debate over the past decade. Previous studies of regional vs general anesthesia often were deficient in experimental design and, therefore, did not produce definitive answers. Some of these deficiencies related to non-standardized, poorly conducted, and/or described general anesthetic techniques, nonstandardized methods of postoperative analgesia in the general anesthesia groups, and variations in preoperative cardiac status in the study groups. Furthermore, most studies did not conclusively demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between the proposed mechanisms of the beneficial effect of regional anesthesia and outcome. Recent studies, however, have claimed improvements in outcome following regional anesthesia in patients undergoing peripheral vascular procedures. The reported beneficial effects have included amelioration of the neuroendocrine stress response to surgery, improvement in pulmonary function, cardiovascular stability, enhancement of lower limb blood flow, reduction in the incidence of graft thrombosis, and a reduction in the thrombic response to surgery. Skeptics still question whether recent studies have the power to determine whether regional anesthesia decreases the incidence of cardiac and pulmonary complications following major vascular surgery. Furthermore, the issue of whether the beneficial effects of regional anesthesia on the incidence of graft thrombosis and the thrombotic response to surgery relating to intraoperative or postoperative regional anesthesia/analgesia, to regional anesthesia per se, or to the systemic effects of absorbed local anesthetics remains unresolved.

7 keywords...

hide…