Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of ultra‐fast track anesthesia for endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy of palmar hyperhidrosis

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveIn this study, we investigated the safety and practicability of ultra‐fast track anesthesia (UFTA) for endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (ETS).MethodsA total of 72 patients with palmar hyperhidrosis undergoing ETS were randomly divided into three groups: the UFTA group (group I), the group undergoing single‐lumen tracheal intubation with local infiltration anesthesia technique (group II), and the group undergoing single‐lumen tracheal intubation with routine anesthesia (group III). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded for all three groups at the following six time points: Before anesthetics administration (T0), the time of intubating or inserting laryngeal mask airway (T1), the time of incising skin (T2), the time of disconnecting of the right sympathetic nerve (T3), the time of disconnecting of the left sympathetic nerve (T4), the time of withdrawing the tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway (T5), and the time of transferring the patient to a post‐anesthesia care unit (PACU) (T6). The three groups were compared from the following perspectives: surgery duration; anesthesia recovery duration, that is, the duration from discontinuation of anesthesia to extubating the tracheal tube; the dose of propofol and remifentanil per kilogram body mass per unit time interval (the time at the end of the procedure, which lasted from anesthesia induction to incision suturing); and the visual analog scale (VAS) in the resting state in the PACU.ResultsBased on pairwise comparisons, the average HR and average MAP values of the three groups differed significantly from T2 to T6 (p < 0.05). As demonstrated by the correlation analysis between remifentanil and propofol with HR and MAP, the doses of the total amount of remifentanil and propofol were lower, and group I used less remifentanil and propofol than group II. No patient in group I experienced throat discomfort following surgery. Patients in groups II and III experienced a range of postoperative discomfort. The VAS scores of groups I and II were significantly lower than those of group III, with group I lower than group II.ConclusionWhen utilized in ETS, UFTA can provide effective anesthesia for minor traumas. It is safe, effective, and consistent with the enhanced recovery philosophy of fast‐track surgery departments.