| Literature DB >> 35313517 |
Chaojun Hu1, Shan Zhang2, Qian Chen3, Rong Wang4.
Abstract
The change of perioperative immune function in patients with esophageal cancer is mainly caused by the joint action of surgical trauma and anesthesia. In our study, we aimed to investigate the effects of different anesthetic methods on the changes of T lymphocyte subsets and cytokines in peripheral blood of patients with esophageal cancer surgery. 50 patients with esophageal cancer were divided into the study group and the control group. Among them, the patients in the control group chose intravenous anesthesia and received self-controlled intravenous analgesia after surgery. Patients in the study group chose thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia, undergoing self-controlled epidural analgesia after surgery; serum interleukin-2 (IL-2) and soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) were measured by ELISA. Serum stress hormones GH and sIL-8 were measured by radioimmunoassay. Both groups of patients achieved significant postoperative analgesia, but the VAS score in the study group at the T2-T4 time point was lower than that in the control group. The serum GH concentration in the study group increased at T1 and reached its highest peak at T2, then decreased. The serum IL-8 concentration of the two groups showed a downward trend from T1 to T4. Thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia for postoperative epidural analgesia can relieve the degree of cellular immunosuppression during and after surgery. Moreover, the thoracic epidural block combined with general anesthesia for esophageal cancer surgery and epidural analgesia after surgery for patients are anesthetic and analgesic methods with clinically significant effects. Our research results have a positive effect on the promotion of postoperative rehabilitation in patients with malignant cell tumors.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35313517 PMCID: PMC8934230 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4752609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
VAS score analysis of patients.
| Groups | T2 | T3 | T4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 3.21 ± 0.34 | 3.16 ± 0.62 | 2.80 ± 0.37 |
| Research group | 1.65 ± 0.27 | 1.96 ± 0.47 | 2.02 ± 0.41 |
The sign () symbolized the statistically significant difference (P < 0.05).
Results of lymphocyte subsets in patients.
| Immune index groups | Groups | T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD4+% | Control group | 35.72 ± 4.51 | 30.21 ± 6.21 | 29.87 ± 5.21 | 23.45 ± 5.12 | 28.41 ± 5.12 |
| Research group | 35.72 ± 4.51 | 30.54 ± 5.17 | 30.54 ± 5.17 | 32.81 ± 5.71 | 36.10 ± 5.62 | |
|
| ||||||
| CD8+ | Control group | 28.21 ± 5.14 | 28.01 ± 5.14 | 31.92 ± 6.02 | 32.45 ± 5.17 | 28.45 ± 6.15 |
| Research group | 29.41 ± 5.34 | 28.51 ± 5.24 | 31.36 ± 6.51 | 32.18 ± 5.41 | 29.15 ± 5.91 | |
|
| ||||||
| CD4+/CD8+ | Control group | 1.36 ± 0.23 | 1.04 ± 0.15 | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 0.71 ± 0.14 | 1.03 ± 0.15 |
| Research group | 1.21 ± 0.14 | 1.07 ± 0.14 | 0.94 ± 0.11 | 1.01 ± 0.14 | 1.21 ± 0.14 | |
|
| ||||||
| IL-2 | Control group | 13.41 ± 2.61 | 10.54 ± 5.52 | 7.84 ± 4.11 | 7.51 ± 3.84 | 9.32 ± 3.82 |
| Research group | 13.51 ± 2.54 | 9.26 ± 4.12 | 8.64 ± 3.42 | 9.42 ± 3.14 | 12.12 ± 4.36 | |
|
| ||||||
| sIL-2R | Control group | 648.21 ± 61.21 | 682.21 ± 57.21 | 701.34 ± 46.12 | 681.21 ± 42.21 | 661.1 ± 50.1 |
| Research group | 650.12 ± 62.41 | 670.63 ± 56.82 | 694.81 ± 83.72 | 681.42 ± 49.62 | 661.6 ± 50.5 | |
Red data indicate a comparison with T0, P < 0.05; italics indicates a comparison with the control group, P < 0.05.
Figure 1Changes in CD4 and CD8 in lymphocyte subsets of patients by flow cytometry.
Figure 2GH concentration analysis chart of two groups of patients.
Figure 3PRL concentration analysis chart of two groups of patients.
Figure 4Analysis of IL-8 concentration in two groups of patients.
Figure 5Cor concentration analysis chart of two groups of patients.