IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Combined General-Epidural Anesthesia with General Anesthesia Effects on Survival and Cancer Recurrence: A Meta-Analysis of Retrospective and Prospective Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Lijian Pei
  • Gang Tan
  • Lei Wang
  • Wenjuan Guo
  • Bo Xiao
  • Xianli Gao
  • Li Wang
  • Hong Li
  • Zhonghuang Xu
  • Xiuhua Zhang
  • Jing Zhao
  • Jie Yi
  • Yuguang Huang

Abstract

Objective: Animals underwent combined general-epidural anesthesia (EGA) is reported to have better long-time outcome than general anesthesia (GA). This study aimed to make overall evaluation of the association between these two anesthetic techniques and prognosis of cancer patients undergoing surgery. Methods: Related databases such as PubMed and EMbase were searched for eligible studies that evaluated the influence of EGA and GA on the prognosis of cancer patients undergoing surgery. Selected studies were evaluated according to the inclusion criteria by two reviewers respectively, followed by data extraction and quality assessment. The odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the influence strength of EGA and GA on prognosis of cancer patients. Results: A total of ten studies involving 3254 patients were included. The overall results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between EGA and GA group (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06, P = 0.187) concerning postoperative recurrence and metastasis rate. In regard to the following two factors: cancer category and time of follow-up, subgroup analysis identified significant differences between EGA and GA in the group of patients with prostate cancer and the group with follow-up less than or equal to two years (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.95, P = 0.027; OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98, P = 0.035; respectively) concerning postoperative recurrence and metastasis rate. However, no significant difference was found in the group of patients with colorectal cancer (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.84–1.33, P = 0.62). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that EGA might be associated with improvement in prognosis of patients with operable prostate cancer and the cancer patients with follow-up less than or equal to two years. However, no obvious relationship between the improvement in prognosis of colorectal cancer and EGA were detected, comparing to GA. Furthermore, all the results should be interpreted cautiously, as heterogeneous data were used for analyzing.

Suggested Citation

  • Lijian Pei & Gang Tan & Lei Wang & Wenjuan Guo & Bo Xiao & Xianli Gao & Li Wang & Hong Li & Zhonghuang Xu & Xiuhua Zhang & Jing Zhao & Jie Yi & Yuguang Huang, 2014. "Comparison of Combined General-Epidural Anesthesia with General Anesthesia Effects on Survival and Cancer Recurrence: A Meta-Analysis of Retrospective and Prospective Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114667
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114667
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114667&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114667?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Ludoviko Zirimenya & Fatima Mahmud-Ajeigbe & Ruth McQuillan & You Li, 2020. "A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between urogenital schistosomiasis and HIV/AIDS infection," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Trang Nguyen & Sara Holton & Thach Tran & Jane Fisher, 2019. "Informal mental health interventions for people with severe mental illness in low and lower middle-income countries: A systematic review of effectiveness," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 65(3), pages 194-206, May.
    4. Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2023. "Landolt Indicator Values in Modern Research: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(1), March.
    7. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    8. Damiano Pizzol & Mike Trott & Igor Grabovac & Mario Antunes & Anna Claudia Colangelo & Simona Ippoliti & Cristian Petre Ilie & Anne Carrie & Nicola Veronese & Lee Smith, 2021. "Laparoscopy in Low-Income Countries: 10-Year Experience and Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, May.
    9. Yehuda Weizman & Oren Tirosh & Jeanie Beh & Franz Konstantin Fuss & Sonja Pedell, 2021. "Gait Assessment Using Wearable Sensor-Based Devices in People Living with Dementia: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Alessandro Margherita & Emanuele Banchi & Alfredo Biffi & Gianluca di Castri & Rocco Morelli, 2022. "Beyond Total Cost Management (TCM) to Systemic Value Management (SVM): Transformational Trends and a Research Manifesto for an Evolving Discipline," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Jacob Elnaggar & Fern Tsien & Lucio Miele & Chindo Hicks & Clayton Yates & Melisa Davis, 2019. "An Integrative Genomics Approach for Associating Genetic Susceptibility with the Tumor Immune Microenvironment in Triple Negative Breast Cancer," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, February.
    12. Evans, Rhiannon & White, James & Turley, Ruth & Slater, Thomas & Morgan, Helen & Strange, Heather & Scourfield, Jonathan, 2017. "Comparison of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide in children and young people in care and non-care populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 122-129.
    13. Yi Ouyang & Ping-Chao Lee & Ling-Mei Ko, 2022. "A Systematic Review of the Development of Sport Policy Research (2000–2020)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Juliane Piasseschi de Bernardin Gonçalves & Giancarlo Lucchetti & Paulo Rossi Menezes & Homero Vallada, 2017. "Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, October.
    15. Hang-Nga Mai & Jaeil Kim & Youn-Hee Choi & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Federica Di Spirito & Alessandra Amato & Maria Pia Di Palo & Maria Contaldo & Francesco D’Ambrosio & Roberto Lo Giudice & Massimo Amato, 2022. "Oral Lesions Following Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Hyun Kim & Navneet Kaur Baidwan & David Kriebel & Manuel Cifuentes & Sherry Baron, 2018. "Asthma among World Trade Center First Responders: A Qualitative Synthesis and Bias Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, May.
    18. D. L. I. H. K. Peiris & Yanping Duan & Corneel Vandelanotte & Wei Liang & Min Yang & Julien Steven Baker, 2022. "Effects of In-Classroom Physical Activity Breaks on Children’s Academic Performance, Cognition, Health Behaviours and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Tr," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-27, August.
    19. Melanie Haag & Elisabeth Zemp & Kurt E. Hersberger & Isabelle Arnet, 2020. "Who Is Best to Test? A Systematic Review of Chlamydia Infections in Switzerland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Stephanie Kovacs & Stephen E Hawes & Stephen N Maley & Emily Mosites & Ling Wong & Andy Stergachis, 2014. "Technologies for Detecting Falsified and Substandard Drugs in Low and Middle-Income Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.