ABSTRACT
Forced-air warming is commonly utilized to prevent perioperative hypothermia. Underbody warming blankets are often employed to secure a larger area for patient warming. While forced-air warming systems are generally regarded as safe, improper usage poses a risk of cutaneous complications. Additionally, the influence of underbody blankets on cutaneous complications remains uncertain. We present a case of cutaneous complications resulting from the improper utilization of a forced-air warming device and an underbody blanket. A 79-year-old man presented to the hospital for robotic proctectomy under general anesthesia. The surgery lasted for 7 hours, and the forced-air warming device with underbody blanket operated continuously for 5 hours intraoperatively. The surgery was completed without any incidents. However, first-degree burns on the patient’s back, along with superficial decubitus ulcers on his right scapula, were observed after surgery. To prevent cutaneous complications, clinicians must adhere to the manufacturer's guidelines when utilizing a forced-air warming system. Compared to overbody blankets, underbody blankets have limitations in monitoring cutaneous responses. Ensuring patient safety requires selecting an appropriate blanket for scheduled operations.
ABSTRACT
Some studies have demonstrated that chemotherapy drugs enhance sensitivity to anesthetics owing to its systemic toxicity, while others have demonstrated that chemotherapy drugs have no effect. This study aimed to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy influences the effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol for sedation in patients withbreast cancer.Methods: This study included patients aged 19–75 years who were scheduled to undergobreast cancer surgery under general anesthesia. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were assigned to group C, whereas those who never received chemotherapy wereassigned to group N. Propofol was administered through an effect-site target-controlled infusion, and the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (MOAA/S) scoreand Bispectral Index (BIS) were recorded. When the plasma concentration and Ce wereequal to the target Ce, and if the MOAA/S score did not change, the target Ce was increasedby 0.2 μg/ml; otherwise, the Ce was maintained for 2 min and then increased. This processwas repeated until the MOAA/S score became 0.Results: No significant differences were observed in Ce values at each sedation level between both groups. Ce values for loss of consciousness (LOC) of groups C and N were 2.76± 0.29 and 2.67 ± 0.27 μg/ml (P = 0.285), respectively. However, the BIS value at LOC ofgroup C (63.87 ± 7.04) was lower than that (68.44 ± 6.01) of group N (P = 0.018).Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer has no effect on the Ce ofpropofol for sedation.