Loading…

Perioperative epidural use and survival outcomes in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer

Epidurals are associated with improved outcomes in some solid tumors, presumably due to their effect on surgical stress response. There are limited data on the prognostic significance of epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced ovarian cancer. We sought...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Gynecologic oncology 2018-11, Vol.151 (2), p.287-293
Main Authors: Tseng, Jill H., Cowan, Renee A., Afonso, Anoushka M., Zhou, Qin, Iasonos, Alexia, Ali, Narisha, Thompson, Errika, Sonoda, Yukio, O'Cearbhaill, Roisin E., Chi, Dennis S., Abu-Rustum, Nadeem R., Long Roche, Kara
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Epidurals are associated with improved outcomes in some solid tumors, presumably due to their effect on surgical stress response. There are limited data on the prognostic significance of epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced ovarian cancer. We sought to assess the impact of epidural anesthesia on the survival outcomes of patients undergoing PDS for advanced ovarian cancer. In this retrospective study, consecutive patients with stage IIIB-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal carcinoma who underwent PDS at our institution from 01/2005–12/2013 were identified. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with regard to epidural use were analyzed. Of 648 patients, 435 received an epidural and 213 did not. Patients in the former group were more likely to have higher stage disease (stage IV disease, 26% vs. 16%, respectively; P = .005), carcinomatosis (87% vs. 80%, respectively; P = .027), and bulky upper abdominal disease (66% vs. 58%, respectively; P = .046). Complete gross resection was achieved in 48% and 32%, respectively (P 
ISSN:0090-8258
1095-6859
DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.08.024