Survival outcomes following total intravenous versus volatile anesthesia in esophagogastric cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Efstathia Liatsou, Alexandra Pliakopanou, Dimitrios Liatsos, Elisabeth Nagy, Ioannis Karniadakis, Kaveh Khodakaram, Dimitrios Schizas, Ioannis Rouvelas
{"title":"Survival outcomes following total intravenous versus volatile anesthesia in esophagogastric cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Efstathia Liatsou, Alexandra Pliakopanou, Dimitrios Liatsos, Elisabeth Nagy, Ioannis Karniadakis, Kaveh Khodakaram, Dimitrios Schizas, Ioannis Rouvelas","doi":"10.1007/s00423-026-04329-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Esophagogastric cancers remain among the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Surgical resection represents the primary curative treatment strategy; however, perioperative factors may influence long-term oncological outcomes. Experimental and clinical evidence suggests that anesthetic techniques may affect tumor progression and recurrence through immunological and oncological pathways. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been proposed to exert immunomodulatory and antitumor effects compared to volatile anesthesia (VA), although evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of TIVA versus volatile anesthesia on survival outcomes in patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2025 comparing TIVA with volatile anesthesia in adult patients undergoing curative surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), early mortality, operation time, and postoperative hospital stay. Pooled hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 10 retrospective studies) involving 264,543 patients were included. Of these, 41,977 patients received TIVA and 222,566 received volatile anesthesia. Pooled analysis of eight studies demonstrated significantly improved overall survival with TIVA (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93; p = 0.003). Subgroup analysis showed a significant survival benefit in patients undergoing gastrectomy (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; p < 0.004), whereas no significant difference was observed for esophagectomy (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73-1.10; p = 0.29). TIVA was associated with non-significant trends toward improved recurrence-free survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.06; p = 0.22) and reduced early mortality (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05; p = 0.17). No statistically significant differences were observed in operation time (MD - 3.81 min, 95% CI - 10.75 to 3.13) or hospital stay (MD - 0.19 days, 95% CI - 0.39 to 0.00; p = 0.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TIVA may be associated with improved long-term survival outcomes compared with volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery, particularly among patients undergoing gastrectomy. Given the predominance of retrospective evidence and methodological heterogeneity, further high-quality prospective randomized studies are required to clarify the oncological impact of anesthetic techniques in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"411 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13649908/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-026-04329-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Esophagogastric cancers remain among the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Surgical resection represents the primary curative treatment strategy; however, perioperative factors may influence long-term oncological outcomes. Experimental and clinical evidence suggests that anesthetic techniques may affect tumor progression and recurrence through immunological and oncological pathways. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been proposed to exert immunomodulatory and antitumor effects compared to volatile anesthesia (VA), although evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of TIVA versus volatile anesthesia on survival outcomes in patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2025 comparing TIVA with volatile anesthesia in adult patients undergoing curative surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), early mortality, operation time, and postoperative hospital stay. Pooled hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.

Results: Thirteen studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 10 retrospective studies) involving 264,543 patients were included. Of these, 41,977 patients received TIVA and 222,566 received volatile anesthesia. Pooled analysis of eight studies demonstrated significantly improved overall survival with TIVA (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93; p = 0.003). Subgroup analysis showed a significant survival benefit in patients undergoing gastrectomy (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; p < 0.004), whereas no significant difference was observed for esophagectomy (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73-1.10; p = 0.29). TIVA was associated with non-significant trends toward improved recurrence-free survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.06; p = 0.22) and reduced early mortality (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05; p = 0.17). No statistically significant differences were observed in operation time (MD - 3.81 min, 95% CI - 10.75 to 3.13) or hospital stay (MD - 0.19 days, 95% CI - 0.39 to 0.00; p = 0.06).

Conclusions: TIVA may be associated with improved long-term survival outcomes compared with volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery, particularly among patients undergoing gastrectomy. Given the predominance of retrospective evidence and methodological heterogeneity, further high-quality prospective randomized studies are required to clarify the oncological impact of anesthetic techniques in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

全静脉麻醉与挥发性麻醉在食管胃癌手术中的生存结果:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书