Mark R Jones1, Graham R Hadley2, Alan D Kaye3, Philipp Lirk4, Richard D Urman5. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. rurman@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast surgery, performed for medical or cosmetic reasons, remains one of the most frequently performed procedures, with over 500,000 cases performed annually in the USA alone. Historically, general anesthesia (GA) has been widely accepted as the gold-standard technique, while epidural anesthesia was largely considered too invasive and thus unnecessary for breast surgery. Over the past years, paravertebral block (PVB) has emerged as an alternative analgesic or even anesthetic technique. Substantial evidence supports the use of PVB for major breast surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: In patients receiving PVB, immediate and long-term analgesia is superior to systemic analgesia while opioid use and typical adverse effects of systemic analgesia such as nausea and vomiting are decreased. The benefits may also include an improved oncological survival with PVB after mastectomy for malignancy. PVB offers clinically significant benefits for perioperative care of patients undergoing breast surgery. The benefits of continuous PVB are most firmly supported for major breast surgery and include both effective short-term pain control and reduction in burden of chronic pain. On the other hand, minor breast surgery should be effectively manageable using multimodal analgesia in the majority of patients, with PVB reserved as analgesic rescue or for patients at high risk of excessive perioperative pain.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast surgery, performed for medical or cosmetic reasons, remains one of the most frequently performed procedures, with over 500,000 cases performed annually in the USA alone. Historically, general anesthesia (GA) has been widely accepted as the gold-standard technique, while epidural anesthesia was largely considered too invasive and thus unnecessary for breast surgery. Over the past years, paravertebral block (PVB) has emerged as an alternative analgesic or even anesthetic technique. Substantial evidence supports the use of PVB for major breast surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: In patients receiving PVB, immediate and long-term analgesia is superior to systemic analgesia while opioid use and typical adverse effects of systemic analgesia such as nausea and vomiting are decreased. The benefits may also include an improved oncological survival with PVB after mastectomy for malignancy. PVB offers clinically significant benefits for perioperative care of patients undergoing breast surgery. The benefits of continuous PVB are most firmly supported for major breast surgery and include both effective short-term pain control and reduction in burden of chronic pain. On the other hand, minor breast surgery should be effectively manageable using multimodal analgesia in the majority of patients, with PVB reserved as analgesic rescue or for patients at high risk of excessive perioperative pain.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anesthesia; Breast surgery; Cancer recurrence; Outcomes; Paravertebral block; Technique
Authors: Michel A Terheggen; Frank Wille; Inne H Borel Rinkes; Trian I Ionescu; Johannes T Knape Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Prema Thavaneswaran; Glenda E Rudkin; Rodney D Cooter; Donald G Moyes; Caryn L Perera; Guy J Maddern Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Mir W Sekandarzad; André A J van Zundert; Philipp B Lirk; Chris W Doornebal; Markus W Hollmann Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Chester C Buckenmaier; Kyung H Kwon; Robin S Howard; Geselle M McKnight; Craig D Shriver; William T Fritz; Gerard A Garguilo; Kristin H Joltes; Alexander Stojadinovic Journal: Pain Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Chris W Doornebal; Kim Vrijland; Cheei-Sing Hau; Seth B Coffelt; Metamia Ciampricotti; Jos Jonkers; Karin E de Visser; Markus W Hollmann Journal: Pain Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Donal J Buggy; Denis C Moriarty; Edward Mascha; Daniel I Sessler Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Juan P Cata; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Vicente Valero; Walter Black; Daliah M Black; Farzin Goravanchi; Ifey C Ifeanyi; Mike Hernandez; Andrea Rodriguez-Restrepo; Vijaya Gottumukkala Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2016 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Miroslav Župčić; David Dedić; Sandra Graf Župčić; Viktor Đuzel; Tatjana Šimurina; Livija Šakić; Igor Grubješić; Ingrid Šutić; Ivana Šutić; Andjelko Korušić Journal: Acta Clin Croat Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 0.780