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.

Background: The depth of anesthesia is an essential factor in surgical prognosis. The neurotoxic effect of chemotherapeutic drugs affects the sensitivity to anesthetics. This study was conducted to determine whether the effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol for loss of consciousness (LOC) differs in patients undergoing preoperative chemotherapy. Methods: A total of 60 patients scheduled for surgery for colorectal cancer under general anesthesia were included in this study. Patients who had received chemotherapy comprised the experimental (C) group, and those without a previous history of chemotherapy comprised the control (N) group. Propofol was administered as an effect-site target-controlled infusion, and the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scores were evaluated. When the plasma concentration and Ce were similar, and if the MOAA/S score did not change, the target Ce was increased by 0.2 μg/ml; otherwise, the Ce was maintained for 2 min and then increased. Results: The Ce values of propofol for loss of verbal contact (LVC) in groups C and N were 2.40 ± 0.39 and 2.29 ± 0.39 μg/ml (P = 0.286), respectively, and those for LOC in groups C and N were 2.69 ± 0.43 and 2.50 ± 0.36 μg/ml (P = 0.069), respectively. No significant difference was observed in Ce values between the two groups. Conclusions Chemotherapy had no effect on the Ce of propofol for LVC and LOC in patients with colorectal cancer. We do not recommend reducing the dose of propofol for the induction of LOC in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

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.

Background: This clinical trial was conducted to determine whether combined use of magnesium sulfate and vitamin C more significantly reduced postoperative fentanyl consumption and pain than magnesium sulfate or vitamin C alone. Methods: The prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled study enrolled 132 patients scheduled for laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to one of the four groups (n = 33 for each group; Group M [magnesium sulfate 40 mg/kg], Group V [vitamin C 50 mg/kg], Group MV [magnesium sulfate 40 mg/kg and vitamin C 50 mg/kg] and Group C [isotonic saline 40 ml]). Cumulative postoperative fentanyl consumption (primary endpoint measure), postoperative pain score by numeric rating scale, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were recorded at 1, 6, 24, and 48 h after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Results: Cumulative postoperative fentanyl consumption was significantly less in Groups M, V, and MV than in Group C at all time points. Group MV showed significantly less cumulative postoperative fentanyl consumption than Group M at postoperative 24 h (mean ± standard deviation, 156.6 ± 67.5 vs. 235.6 ± 94.6 μg, P = 0.001), as well as significantly less consumption than Groups M and V at postoperative 48 h (190.8 ± 74.6 vs. 301.0 ± 114.8 or 284.1 ± 128.6 μg, P < 0.001, P = 0.003, respectively). Conclusions Combined use of magnesium sulfate and vitamin C provides an additional benefit in postoperative pain management after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery in comparison to single administration of magnesium sulfate or vitamin C.

Lithium is the drug of choice for treating bipolar affective disorders. However, it has a narrow therapeutic index and acute and chronic toxicity can occur in patients with chronic ingestion. Chronic toxicity commonly presents as nephrogenic diabetes insipidus or thyroid dysfunction. Neurologic symptoms such as apathy, hyperreflexia, or clonus can also occur in acute toxicity. However, it rarely causes peripheral neuropathy. We experienced a case of lithium-induced peripheral polyneuropathy who had already nephrogenic diabetes insipidus and chronic kidney disease during 25 years of lithium ingestion due to bipolar disorder.
Apathy ; Bipolar Disorder ; Diabetes Insipidus ; Diabetes Insipidus, Nephrogenic* ; Eating ; Humans ; Lithium ; Mood Disorders ; Neurologic Manifestations ; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases ; Polyneuropathies* ; Reflex, Abnormal ; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic ; Thyroid Gland ; Upper Extremity*