• Michele Carron, Ulderico Freo, Federico Innocente, Stefano Veronese, Pierluigi Pilati, Vesna Jevtovic-Todorovic, and Carlo Ori.
• Department of Pharmacology and Anesthesiology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
• Anesth. Analg. 2007 Nov 1;105(5):1500-3, table of contents.

BackgroundChemotherapeutic stop-flow perfusion is a new investigational treatment for locally advanced cancers that is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA), and, less frequently, under spinal anesthesia (SA). We designed this clinical trial to compare the clinical profiles of GA and SA for stop-flow perfusion.MethodsAnesthesia and recovery times, scores on visual analog scales for postoperative pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and admission to the postanesthesia care unit were measured in 40 cancer patients who randomly received either GA with propofol, nitrous oxide/sevoflurane, and fentanyl, or SA with bupivacaine hydrochloride for lower limb or pelvic stop-flow perfusion.ResultsGA and SA did not differ in times to achieve home readiness or patient satisfaction. Compared with GA, SA significantly (P < 0.05) reduced anesthesia times (34 vs 16 min), postoperative visual analog scale scores for pain (5 vs 0) and nausea (8 vs 2), and the number of admissions to the postanesthesia care unit (9 vs 0).ConclusionsFor stop-flow perfusion, GA and SA are both effective, but SA provides faster recovery, superior analgesia, and less postoperative nausea and vomiting in the immediate postoperative period.

20 keywords...

hide…