The main objective of this study is to evaluate general anesthesia or propofol-based sedation methods at gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures.The anesthetic method administered to cases undergoing upper gastrointestinal ESD between 2013 and 2015 was retrospectively investigated. Procedure time, lesion size, dissection speed, anesthesia time, adverse effects such as gag reflex, nausea, vomiting, cough, number of desaturation episodes (SpO2 < 90%), oropharyngeal suctioning requirements, hemorrhage, perforation, and amount of anesthetic medications were recorded.There were 54 and 37 patients who were administered sedation (group S) and general anesthesia (group G), respectively. The demographics of the groups were similar. The calculated dissection speed was significantly high in group G (36.02 ± 20.96 mm2/min) compared with group S (26.04 ± 17.56 mm2/min; P = 0.010). The incidence of nausea, cough, number of oropharyngeal suctioning, and desaturation episodes were significantly high in group S compared with that in group G (P < 0.5). While there was no difference between the groups in terms of hemodynamic parameters, in group S the use of propofol and in group G the use of midazolam and fentanyl were significantly higher (P < 0.05). Anesthesia time, postoperative anesthesia care unit, and hospital stay durations were not significantly different between the groups.General anesthesia increased dissection speed and enhanced endoscopist performance when compared with propofol-based sedation technique.

Lower education, lower economic level, labor intensive jobs and smoking were correlated with lower back pain. It was concluded that by taking precautions that lower risk factors, incidence of lower back pain can be decreased.

Operative decision in American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status (ASA-PS) V patient is difficult as this group of patients expected to have high mortality rate. Another risk scoring system in this ASA-PS V subset of patients can aid to ease this decision.Data of ASA-PS V classified patients between 2011 and 2013 years in a single hospital were analyzed in this study. Predicted mortality of these patients was determined with acute physiology and chronic health evaluations (APACHE) II, simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), Porthsmouth physiological and operative severity score for enumeration of mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM), Surgical apgar score (SAS), and Goldman cardiac risk index (GCRI) scores. Observed and predicted mortality rates according to the risk indexes in these patients were compared at survivor and nonsurvivor group of patients. Risk stratification was made with receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.Data of 89 patients were included in the analyses. Predicted mortality rates generated by APACHE II and SAPS II scoring systems were significantly different between survivor and nonsurvivor group of patients. Risk stratification with ROC analysis revealed that area under curve was 0.784 and 0.681 for SAPS II and APACHE II scoring systems, respectively. Highest sensitivity (77.3) is reached with SAPS II score.APACHE II and SAPS II are better predictive tools of mortality in ASA-PS V classified subset of patients. Discrimination power of SAPS II score is the best among the compared risk stratification scores. SAPS II can be suggested as an additional risk scoring system for ASA-PS V patients.

This study shows that prolonged extracorporeal circulation may develop flow decrease and ischemia in cerebral and abdominal organs with both subclavian and femoral cannulations.

No abstract