Modifying Stress Response A CL 2021

M odifyin g t h e St res s
Response – Perioperative
C o n s i d e r a t i o n s a n d C o n t ro v e r s i e s
Leigh J.S. Kelliher, MBBS, BSc, FRCA, MDa,*,
Michael Scott, MBChB, FRCP, FRCA, FFICMb,c,d
KEYWORDS
Stress response to surgery Metabolic response to surgery
Modification of the stress response Enhanced recovery after surgery Anesthesia
Perioperative care
KEY POINTS
The ‘surgical stress response’ describes the complex and interdependent physiological
processes that occur following trauma/tissue injury.
There are a variety of perioperative interventions that may alter these processes and
therefore modify the stress response.
Definitive clinical evidence for the benefit of any single stress-modifying perioperative
intervention is lacking.
Combining perioperative interventions to form comprehensive care pathways, e.g. ERAS
pathways, has produced improvements in clinical outcomes.
The idea that perioperative outcomes may be improved through the implementation of
measures that modify the surgical stress response has been around for several de-
cades, generating a great deal of research.1,2 The term “stress response” describes
the characteristic wide-ranging physiologic changes that occur following a surgical
insult/trauma. These are complex, interdependent, and often incompletely understood
molecular processes and consequently, there is a multitude of ways in which modifica-
tion may be attempted and many different techniques trialled.2 In addition, how the
response to modification is measured, what constitutes a positive result and how this
translates into clinical practice has and continues to be the subject of debate. Toward
the end of the 1990s interest grew in combining individual interventions and adopting a
global approach to perioperative care aimed at producing “stress-free anesthesia and
a
Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton
Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7AS, UK; b Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; c Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; d Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, University Col-
lege London, London, UK
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Anesthesiology Clin 40 (2022) 23–33

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2021.11.012 anesthesiology.theclinics.com
1932-2275/22/ª 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Downloaded for Anonymous User (n/a) at Costa Rica University from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on September 02,
2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2022. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
24 Kelliher & Scott
surgery to improve postoperative recovery and reduce morbidity.3 This is the principal
tenet behind the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) movement which has seen the
development of guidelines for perioperative care across a variety of surgical spe-
cialties4 bringing with them significant improvements in outcomes, including reductions
in length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity.5,6 While the benefits seen with
the implementation of ERAS pathways are likely the result of multiple factors, included
among these is how they modify the stress response. Another key aspect of recovery
after surgery is the restoration of normal metabolism. ERAS pathways promote a pa-
tient that is eating, sleeping, and mobilizing as soon as possible after surgery by not
just reducing stress but improving the metabolic response to this stress response. An
overview of the complex relationship between surgical injury, the SIRS response and
the metabolic response, and how perioperative interventions can impact these are illus-
trated in Fig. 1. This metabolic response is generally characterized as a state of insulin
resistance causing transient hyperglycemia. However, patients can present for surgery
with a disrupted metabolic state before stress is incurred. This is commonly seen in pa-
tients who have protein malnutrition or who have cancer. Cancer drives a catabolic state
which is hard to reverse without controlling cancer.
There is a lot of literature written on the stress response so this chapter is focused on
interventions to reduce this. The impact of some common elements of ERAS path-
ways on surgical stress as well as that of more novel/controversial techniques is sum-
marized here.
NUTRITION
The physiologic response to surgery includes several characteristic metabolic changes

that ultimately result in increased breakdown of glycogen and skeletal muscle to mobi-
lize glucose stores and the creation of a generally insulin-resistant, catabolic state.7 The
Fig. 1. Overview of the surgical stress response and perioperative interventions that may
impact it. NK, natural killer; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
Modifying the Stress Response 25
negative effect of this may be compounded by prolonged perioperative starvation times

and the presence of preexisting malnutrition (eg, in patients with cancer) which, left un-
checked, increases the risk of postoperative complications and poor outcomes.8–10
Minimization of starvation times, administration of a preoperative carbohydrate
“loading,” early return to enteral feeding postoperatively and adequate perioperative
nutritional support/supplementation have all been shown to mitigate the metabolic
changes, reduce postoperative insulin-resistance, and catabolism11,12 and conse-
quently reduce the incidence of complications such as poor wound healing, infection
and decreased mobility, and promote functional recovery.13,14 These measures, along-
side assessment of patients’ nutritional status and recognition of those at highest risk,
are constitutive to enhanced recovery pathways across all surgical specialties and the
European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) has produced compre-
hensive guidelines for the management of perioperative nutrition.15
THERMOREGULATION
Hypothermia is common under anesthesia and is the result of a combination of physical

exposure and a loss of the body’s ability to thermoregulate.16 Evidence from a variety of
settings including critical care, military research, postcardiac arrest, and during cardio-
pulmonary bypass has demonstrated that hypothermia is a trigger for stress, primarily
through the release of catecholamines and activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adre-
nocortical axis.17 The elevation in circulating catecholamines, cortisol, and other factors
such as thyroid hormone has a variety of downstream sequelae including metabolic
disturbance, immunosuppression, and the release of inflammatory mediators. The
magnitude of this phenomenon is proportional to the degree of hypothermia, but even
mild hypothermia can elicit a response which may, in turn, further compound the stress
response seen because of the surgical insult.18,19 The clinical consequences of intraoper-
ative hypothermia include changes in drug metabolism, coagulopathy, increased trans-
fusion requirements, shivering, and delayed recovery as well as an increase in infective
and cardiac complications.19–21 A proactive approach to maintaining normothermia peri-
operatively can modify the degree of stress which is induced thus mitigating the clinical
risks and a variety of consensus guidelines exist aimed at achieving this end.22
HEMODYNAMICS AND OXYGEN DELIVERY
Successful hemodynamic management exists in equilibrium with surgical stress. The

greater the stress response, the more salt and water retention, inflammation, and
capillary permeability occur which in turn may result in a situation whereby both intra-
vascular hypovolemia and tissue edema exist simultaneously. The ultimate conse-
quence of this is reduced oxygen delivery to end-organ tissues and an increase in
oxidative stress (OS) at a cellular level setting in motion a downward spiral of events
that manifest clinically as an increase in the incidence of postoperative complications
and mortality.23 Fluid management becomes extremely challenging and involves
negotiating a fine margin between too little and too much fluid, both of which will
further contribute to ongoing stress and complications.23,24 Getting fluid management
correct from the outset—avoiding hypotension, fluid overload, electrolyte disturbance,
and optimizing oxygen delivery to the tissues—is essential for preventing excessive
stress and inflammation.24 Finding the best way to achieve this has been the subject
of a vast amount of research but to date, no one regimen has been shown to be su-
perior. Most consensus guidelines of perioperative care for major surgical procedures
advocate a tailored approach with the judicious use of balanced crystalloid fluids and
vasopressors, guided by invasive blood pressure measurement and some form of
26 Kelliher & Scott
cardiac output monitoring.4,24,25 Maintenance of oxygen delivery with an adequate

cardiac output and oxygen-carrying capacity is also important in high-risk surgeries.
Maintaining hemoglobin above that which can cause organ dysfunction (usually 7–
9 g/dL), while avoiding overzealous blood transfusion is key using a restrictive blood
transfusion policy. Preoperative optimization of hemoglobin by screening and identi-
fying causes of anemia and correcting them with intravenous iron therapy is becoming
increasingly common in major surgery.
SURGICAL APPROACH
The degree of tissue trauma inflicted at the time of surgery is a major determinant of
the magnitude of the stress response and there is a significant body of evidence
demonstrating a reduction in various aspects of the stress response with laparoscopic
surgery when compared with the equivalent open technique. A randomized controlled
trial comparing markers of the stress response in laparoscopic versus open cholecys-
tectomy demonstrated postoperative catecholamine, cortisol, IL-6, glucose, and CRP
levels were all significantly higher following open surgery26 and several other studies in
cholecystectomy patients have demonstrated better preservation of immune function
(cytokine levels, T-cell ratios, and function) with the laparoscopic approach.27 A study
comparing markers of the stress response following open, laparoscopic, and robotic
colorectal surgery found them to be higher in the open surgery group, but comparable
between laparoscopic and robotic surgery28 and another in patients undergoing major
urologic surgery demonstrated lower IL-6, IL-10, and granulocytic elastase with lapa-
roscopic surgery.29 Similar evidence exists for multiple other surgical procedures.30 It
should be noted that not all evidence supports this effect with several studies finding
no difference in certain aspects of the stress response between equivalent laparo-
scopic and open procedures and a few suggesting that the response may even be
greater following laparoscopy. A systematic review of the effect of laparoscopic sur-
gery on the OS response (the balance of prooxidants and antioxidants) found that
many studies were of low quality with a great heterogeneity between them in terms
of design, method, measured OS markers, duration of investigation, and types of op-
erations investigated. Results between studies were discordant necessitating further
robust work be conducted before firm conclusions may be reached.31
In terms of clinical outcomes, laparoscopic surgery has been associated with
reduced postoperative pain, fewer wound infections, shorter length of hospital stay,
and faster return to normal activities for a variety of surgeries,32–35 although several
systematic reviews have found the evidence for many of the procedures to be of
low quality. A systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews identified 36 such
studies evaluating laparoscopic versus open surgery. The authors concluded that
overall evidence supports an advantage with laparoscopic surgery.35
The mechanisms behind the benefits of laparoscopic surgery are doubtless multiple
and while a reduction in the stress response may be contributory the evidence to date
does not demonstrate a causative link. In any event, the move toward more minimally
invasive surgical procedures (laparoscopic, lap-assisted, robotic, endoscopic, single
port, natural orifice) has been inexorable and has been accompanied by a general
improvement in perioperative outcomes over the last decades.
ANESTHETIC FACTORS
Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Volatile Anesthesia
The idea that the stress response (and hence clinical outcomes) may be differentially
affected using either volatile anesthesia or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia
(TIVA) is controversial. Evidence, principally from the laboratory, has highlighted various
biological mechanisms that lend plausibility to this theory.36 One such is that volatile
anesthetic agents have been shown to promote the expression of hypoxia-inducible
factors (HIF).37 These are transcription factors, released in response to hypoxia, that
promote angiogenesis and glycolysis and form the basis of the ischemic precondition-
ing phenomenon seen with volatile anesthesia.38 HIFs have also been implicated in the
promotion of tumor growth and metastases leading to speculation that they may play a
role in early tumor recurrence following cancer surgery. By contrast, laboratory evi-
dence suggests that propofol does not elicit a HIF response and may even inhibit it.39
Despite this clinical evidence of a beneficial effect with TIVA is mixed and of low quality
with several recent systematic reviews commenting that prospective randomized
controlled trials are required before any conclusions may be drawn.40–42
Regional Anesthesia
By far the most studied the regional anesthetic technique in terms of the stress
response to major surgery is thoracic epidural (TEA). Several studies have demon-
strated how TEA ameliorates the catecholamine and cortisol response to surgery,
reducing postoperative catabolism;43,44 however, evidence also suggests that it has
little/no effect on the inflammatory cytokine response.45 Clinical benefits of TEA
include excellent pain relief—it is recommended in guidelines for a variety of open up-
per abdominal and thoracic surgeries4,46,47—and reduced incidence of cardiac, pul-
monary, and thromboembolic complications48–50 although it should be noted that
several studies have failed to show these effects. The high failure rate, potential com-
plications of insertion, and complexities of successful management of TEA, alongside
the reduced analgesic requirements associated with minimally invasive surgery, has
seen a variety of alternatives emerge including wound catheters, abdominal field
blocks, and single-shot intrathecal opioids. While reportedly effective, robust evi-
dence directly comparing these techniques with TEA is lacking.
Opioids
Despite the drive to adopt opioid-sparing strategies for perioperative analgesia to
accelerate postoperative recovery, worldwide, opioid drugs remain ubiquitous for
the management of severe pain. They exert their analgesic effect principally via ago-
nism of the m-opioid receptor, both peripherally and centrally. Opioids have been
shown to modulate the stress response both directly and indirectly. By reducing noci-
ceptive transmission in the sensory pathways of the spinal cord they may, in turn,
reduce the central activation of the sympathetic nervous system, reducing catechol-
amine release, and moderating the cardiovascular response to surgical stimulation.51
In addition, opioid receptors have been identified within the sympathetic nervous sys-
tem itself and therefore may exert some of their action by directly reducing sympa-
thetic activity.52 High-dose fentanyl has been shown to prevent the increase in
circulating catecholamines and completely suppress the circulatory response in pa-
tients undergoing cholecystectomy53 and cardiac surgery.54 As well as blunting the
sympathetic response to surgery, opioids may act on the hypothalamic–pituitary–
adrenocortical axis to reduce the release of both ACTH and cortisol55,56 although ev-
idence for this is mixed, and the clinical consequences are unclear. Finally, opioids
have been implicated in causing postoperative immunosuppression either because
of their effect on cortisol levels or via a direct action on cellular components of the im-
mune system.57 Evidence for this is effect is conflicting and mostly limited to in vitro
animal studies. What is certain is that opioid analgesics are associated with several
side effects that negatively impact recovery after surgery, namely respiratory
28 Kelliher & Scott
depression, sedation, constipation, nausea, and vomiting and it is also true that poorly
controlled pain is both a trigger and perpetuating factor in surgical stress. As a result,
most current guidelines for fast-track recovery pathways advocate adopting an effec-
tive, opioid-sparing, multimodal analgesic strategy, tailored to the requirements of the
surgical procedure, the institution, and the individual.4
Steroids
Cortisol is perhaps the principal “stress” hormone, playing a key role in the surgical
stress response. It, therefore, follows that the perioperative use of exogenous cortico-
steroids will modify the innate stress response. In addition to reducing inflammation,
corticosteroid therapy produces a wide range of effects throughout the body including
alterations in carbohydrate, lipid, and protein metabolism and changes in water and
electrolyte balance. The use of corticosteroids has a multisystemic impact, from car-
diovascular, musculoskeletal, and gastrointestinal to endocrine and immune sys-
tems.57 Consequently, they are indicated for a vast array of conditions spanning the
whole of clinical medicine, including perioperative care, whereby low-dose steroid
(typically dexamethasone between 0.05 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg) is used widely for its
antiemetic, antiinflammatory and analgesic effect and has been shown to improve
the quality of recovery for a variety of surgeries.58–60 Concerns have been raised
over the safety of perioperative steroid administration with the suggestion that it
may lead to an increased incidence of wound infection, dehiscence or even an early
recurrence of cancer because of the immunosuppression and hyperglycemia it in-
duces. However, the evidence to date seems to show that these concerns are un-
founded with several meta-analyses failing to demonstrate these effects.61,62
Research into this issue continues and the results are awaited.63 More recently there
has been a resurgence of interest in the use of high-dose (>0.1 mg/kg) perioperative
steroids for improving parameters of recovery. A systematic review identified 11 RCTs
examining the use of high-dose dexamethasone in hip and knee arthroplasty with the
meta-analysis showing a reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain
and a faster recovery with high-dose steroids. There was no difference in complica-
tions between groups.64 Further work to elucidate both the optimal dose of steroid
in this setting and the effect of this intervention on subpopulations at higher risk of
postoperative pain is underway with 3 further RCTs due to report their results
soon.65 The perioperative use of high-dose methylprednisolone (15–30 mg/kg) has
also been evaluated in a variety of surgeries. In hepatic resection, it has been shown
to reduce markers of the stress response (IL-6, IL-8, CRP) (although the clinical impli-
cations of this were unclear)66,67 and a metanalysis of 28 studies (including 25 RCTs) in
mandibular surgery found that use of high-dose methylprednisolone was associated
with less postoperative pain, swelling and trismus.68 Finally, a systematic review of
the use of high dose methylprednisolone in 51 studies in cardiac and noncardiac sur-
gery found no significant difference in adverse effect between groups, but also no sig-
nificant difference in postoperative pain or hospital stay—although pulmonary
complications were reduced in trauma patients given methylprednisolone.69
Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend the routine use of high-dose ste-
roids in perioperative care, but this may change as more data emerges.
ß-Blockers
Perioperative ß-blockade blunts sympathetic activity and thereby diminishes the neuro-
endocrine response to surgery. It has been postulated that by using them for this indi-
cation it may be possible to reduce the physiologic stress of surgery and thereby reduce
complications and improve outcomes. Despite the biological plausibility of this idea,
clinical research examining this question has yielded conflicting results with some
studies demonstrating harm from this intervention—an increased incidence of postop-
erative hypotension, stroke, and mortality.70 A recent meta-analysis of 83 RCTs (14,967
patients) found the evidence for all-cause mortality with perioperative ß-blockade was
uncertain and that further, large, placebo-controlled trials were required.71
A variety of other agents aimed at modifying surgical stress and improving postop-
erative outcomes have been investigated, including a2-agonists (clonidine, dexmede-
tomidine)72 and melatonin;73 however, to date there is no high-quality evidence
supporting their use in this setting.
SUMMARY
The interplay between pathologic processes, surgery, and its physiologic sequelae
and clinical outcomes is complex and incompletely understood. Research in this
area is challenging, particularly in the face of constantly evolving practice, new tech-
nologies, and pharmaceutical agents and changing patient demographics. Finding
definitive evidence for specific perioperative interventions is often difficult with studies
yielding a variety of conflicting results. Fast track surgical programs, such as ERAS,
aim to optimize patients’ recovery from surgery by reducing its physiologic
impact—“stress-free surgery and anesthesia”—by using multiple perioperative inter-
ventions. While definitive evidence to support any one of these interventions alone
may be lacking, perhaps the improvement in clinical outcomes (reduced length of hos-
pital stay, reduced morbidity) seen as the advent of fast-track pathways demonstrates
that in combination they are effective in achieving their aim.
CLINICS CARE POINTS
For patients undergoing major surgery, a perioperative care pathway comprising multimodal
interventions with the overall aim of minimising the stress of anaesthesia and surgery is
recommended.
A pragmatic approach to perioperative care is to consider the benefits and risks of individual
perioperative interventions in the context of local skills and resources to produce a pathway
tailored to the patients and institution in question.
Optimising nutritional status is important and often overlooked, particularly where surgery
is time critical (e.g. cancer surgery).
REFERENCES
1. Kehlet H. The stress response to surgery: release mechanisms and the modifying
effect of pain relief. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1989;550:22–8.
2. Novak-Jankovic V, Paver-Erzen V. How can anesthetists modify stress response
during perioperative period?. In: Gullo A, editor. Anaesthesia, pain, Intensive
care and emergency medicine — a.P.I.C.E. Milano: Springer; 2002. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-88-470-2099-3_89.
3. Kehlet H. The surgical stress response: should it be prevented? Can J Surg 1991;
34(6):565–7.
4. Available at: https://erassociety.org/guidelines/list-of-guidelines/. Accessed
October 14, 2021.
5. Jones C, Kelliher L, Dickinson M, et al. Randomized clinical trial on enhanced re-
covery versus standard care following open liver resection. Br J Surg 2013;
100(8):1015–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9165.
30 Kelliher & Scott
6. Rawlinson A, Kang P, Evans J, et al. A systematic review of enhanced recovery

protocols in colorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011;93(8):583–8.
7. Cuthbertson DP. Observations on the disturbance of metabolism produced by
injury to the limbs. Q J Med 1932;1:233–46.
8. Gillis C, Carli F. Promoting perioperative metabolic and nutritional care. Anesthe-
siology 2015;123:1455–72.
9. Alazawi W, Pirmadid N, Lahiri R, et al. Inflammatory and immune responses to
surgery and their clinical impact. Ann Surg 2016;64:73–80.
10. Aahlin EK, Tranø G, Johns N, et al. Risk factors, complications and survival after
upper abdominal surgery: a prospective cohort study. BMC Surg 2015;15:83.
11. Soop M, Nygren J, Thorell A, et al. Preoperative oral carbohydrate treatment atten-
uates endogenous glucose release 3 days after surgery. Clin Nutr 2004;23:733–41.
12. Breuer JP, von Dossow V, von Heymann C, et al. Preoperative oral carbohydrate
administration to ASA III-IV patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Anesth
Analg 2006;103:1099–108.
13. Andersen HK, Lewis SJ, Thomas S. Early enteral nutrition within 24h of colorectal
surgery versus later commencement of feeding for postoperative complications.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(4):CD004080.
14. Osland E, Yunus RM, Khan S, et al. Early versus traditional postoperative
feeding in patients undergoing resectional gastrointestinal surgery: a meta-anal-
ysis. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011;35:473–87.
15. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, et al. ESPEN guideline: clinical nutrition in surgery.
Clin Nutr 2017;36(3):623–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2017.02.013.
16. Sessler DI. Mild perioperative hypothermia. N Engl J Med 1997;336(24):1730–7.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199706123362407.
17. Goldstein DS. Adrenal responses to stress. Cell Mol Neurobiol 2010;30(8):
1433–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10571-010-9606-9.
18. Pozos RS, Danzl DF. In: Medical aspects of harsh environments, vol. 1. U.S. Army.
Office of the surgeon general. Borden Institute; 2002. p. pp351–82.
19. Sessler DI. Perioperative thermoregulation and heat balance. Lancet 2016;
387(10038):2655–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00981-2.
20. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the inci-
dence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound
Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1209–15. https://doi.
org/10.1056/NEJM199605093341901.
21. Frank SM, Fleisher LA, Breslow MJ, et al. Perioperative maintenance of normo-
thermia reduces the incidence of morbid cardiac events. A randomized clinical
trial. JAMA 1997;277:1127–34. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.277.14.1127.
22. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg65/chapter/Context. Accessed
October 14, 2021.
23. Miller TE, Myles PS. Perioperative fluid therapy for major surgery. Anesthesiology
2019;130:825–32.
24. Holte K, Sharrock NE, Kehlet H. Pathophysiology and clinical implications of peri-
operative fluid excess. Br J Anaesth 2002;89(4):622–32.
25. Thiele RH, Raghunathan K, Brudney CS, et al. Perioperative Quality Initiative
(POQI) I Workgroup. American Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER) and Periop-
erative Quality Initiative (POQI) joint consensus statement on perioperative fluid
management within an enhanced recovery pathway for colorectal surgery. Perioper
Med (Lond) 2016;5:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-016-0049-9. Erratum in:
Perioper Med (Lond). 2018 Apr 10;7:5. PMID: 27660701; PMCID: PMC5027098.
26. Karayiannakis AJ, Makri GG, Mantzioka A, et al. Systemic stress response after
laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy: a randomized trial. Br J Surg 1997;
84(4):467–71.
27. Gupta A, Watson DI. Effect of laparoscopy on immune function. Br J Surg 2001;
88(10):1296–306. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01860.x.
28. Shibata J, Ishihara S, Tada N, et al. Surgical stress response after colorectal
resection: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Tech Colo-
proctol 2015;19(5):275–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1263-4.
29. Miyake H, Kawabata G, Gotoh A, et al. Comparison of surgical stress between
laparoscopy and open surgery in the field of urology by measurement of humoral
mediators. Int J Urol 2002;9:329–33.
30. Buunen M, Gholghesaei M, Veldkamp R, et al. Stress response to laparoscopic
surgery: a review. Surg Endosc 2004;18(7):1022–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00464-003-9169-7.
31. Yiannakopoulou EC, Nikiteas N, Perrea D, et al. Effect of laparoscopic surgery on
oxidative stress response: systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percuta-
neous Tech 2013;23(2):101–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/sle.0b013e3182827b33.
32. Jaschinski T, Mosch CG, Eikermann M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery
for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;(11):CD001546.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub4.
33. Piessen G, Lefèvre JH, Cabau M, et al, AFC and the FREGAT working group.
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors:
what is the impact on postoperative outcome and oncologic results? Ann Surg
2015;262(5):831–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001488 [discussion
829–40].
34. Jien, He MD, Xiaohua, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery in the treatment
of hepatic hemangioma. Medicine 2021;100(8):e24155. https://doi.org/10.1097/
MD.0000000000024155.
35. Carr BM, Lyon JA, Romeiser J, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery: a sys-
tematic review evaluating Cochrane systematic reviews. Surg Endosc 2019;
33(6):1693–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6532-2.
36. Evans MT, Wigmore T, Kelliher LJS. The impact of anaesthetic technique upon
outcome in oncological surgery. BJA Educ 2019;19(1):14–20. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.bjae.2018.09.008.
37. Benzonana LL, Perry NJ, Watts HR, et al. Isoflurane, a commonly used volatile
anesthetic, enhances renal cancer growth and malignant potential via the
hypoxia-inducible factor cellular signaling pathway in vitro. Anesthesiology
2013;119(3):593–605. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e31829e47fd.
38. Cai Z, Luo W, Zhan H, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 is required for remote
ischemic preconditioning of the heart. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110(43):
17462–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317158110.
39. Behmenburg F, van Caster P, Bunte S, et al. Impact of anesthetic regimen on
remote ischemic preconditioning in the rat heart in vivo. Anesth Analg 2018;
126(4):1377–80. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002563.
40. Soltanizadeh S, Degett TH, Gögenur I. Outcomes of cancer surgery after inhala-
tional and intravenous anesthesia: a systematic review. J Clin Anesth 2017;42:
19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.08.001.
41. Yap A, Lopez-Olivo MA, Dubowitz J, et al, Global Onco-Anesthesia Research
Collaboration Group. Anesthetic technique and cancer outcomes: a meta-
analysis of total intravenous versus volatile anesthesia. Can J Anaesth 2019;
32 Kelliher & Scott
66(5):546–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-019-01330-x. Erratum in: Can J

Anaesth. 2019 Aug;66(8):1007-1008. PMID: 30834506.
42. Chang CY, Wu MY, Chien YJ, et al. Anesthesia and long-term oncological out-
comes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2021;132(3):
623–34. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000005237.
43. Holte K, Kehlet H. Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia - effects on surgical stress
responses and implications for postoperative nutrition. Clin Nutr 2002;21(3):
199–206. https://doi.org/10.1054/clnu.2001.0514.
44. Kouraklis G, Glinavou A, Raftopoulos L, et al. Epidural analgesia attenuates the
systemic stress response to upper abdominal surgery: a randomized trial. Int
Surg 2000;85(4):353–7.
45. Norman JG, Fink GW. The effects of epidural anesthesia on the neuroendocrine
response to major surgical stress: a randomized prospective trial. Am Surg 1997;
63(1):75–80.
46. Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Shah R, et al. A systematic review of randomized trials eval-
uating regional techniques for postthoracotomy analgesia. Anesth Analg 2008;
107(3):1026–40. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000333274.63501.ff.
47. Manion SC, Brennan TJ, Bruno R. Thoracic epidural analgesia and acute pain
management. Anesthesiology 2011;115:181–8.
48. Beattie WS, Badner NH, Choi P. Epidural analgesia reduces postoperative
myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2001;93(4):853–8.
49. Guay J. The benefits of adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia: a meta-
analysis. J Anesth 2006;20:335–40.
50. Pöpping DM, Elia N, Marret E, et al. Protective effects of epidural analgesia on
pulmonary complications after abdominal and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis.
Arch Surg 2008;143(10):990–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.143.10.990.
51. Schlereth T, Birklein F. The sympathetic nervous system and pain. Neuromol Med
2008;10:141–7.
52. Hung CF, Chang WL, Liang HC, et al. Identification of opioid receptors in the sym-
pathetic and parasympathetic nerves of guinea-pig atria. Fundam Clin Pharma-
col 2000;14(4):387–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-8206.2000.tb00420.x.
53. Klingstedt C, Giesecke K, Hamberger B, et al. High- and low-dose fentanyl
anaesthesia: circulatory and plasma catecholamine responses during cholecys-
tectomy. Br J Anaesth 1987;59(2):184–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/59.2.184.
54. Naguib AN, Tobias JD, Hall MW, et al. The role of different anesthetic techniques
in altering the stress response during cardiac surgery in children: a prospective,
double-blinded, and randomized study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2013;14(5):
481–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0b013e31828a742c.
55. Watanabe K, Kashiwagi K, Kamiyama T, et al. High-dose remifentanil suppresses
stress response associated with pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic colec-
tomy. J Anesth 2014;28(3):334–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-013-1738-x.
56. Haroutounian S. Postoperative opioids, endocrine changes, and immunosup-
pression. Pain Rep 2018;3(2):e640. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.00000000000
00640.
57. McKay LI, Cidlowski JA. Physiologic and pharmacologic effects of corticoste-
roids. In: Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al, editors. Holland-frei can-
cer medicine. 6th edition. Hamilton, ON: BC Decker; 2003. Available at: https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK13780/.
58. Mihara T, Ishii T, Ka K, et al. Effects of Steroids on Quality of Recovery and
Adverse Events after General Anesthesia: Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential
Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. PLoS One 2016;11(9):e0162961.
59. Zhuo Y, Yu R, Wu C, et al. The role of perioperative intravenous low-dose dexa-

methasone in rapid recovery after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Int
Med Res 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060521998220.
60. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Greenberg SB, et al. Preoperative dexamethasone en-
hances quality of recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: effect on in-
hospital and postdischarge recovery outcomes. Anesthesiology 2011;114:882–90.
61. Toner AJ, Ganeshanathan V, Chan MT, et al. Safety of perioperative glucocorti-
coids in elective noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anesthesiology 2017;126:234–48.
62. Waldron NH, Jones CA, Gan TJ, et al. Impact of perioperative dexamethasone on
postoperative analgesia and side-effects: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Br J Anaesth 2013;110(2):191–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes431.
63. Corcoran TB, Myles PS, Forbes AB, et al, on behalf of the Australian and New
Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network (ANZCA), and the
Australian Society for Infectious Diseases (ASID) Clinical Research Network.
The perioperative administration of dexamethasone and infection (PADDI) trial
protocol: rationale and design of a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority study.
BMJ Open 2019;9:e030402. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030402.
64. Yue C, Wei R, Liu Y. Perioperative systemic steroid for rapid recovery in total knee
and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
J Orthop Surg Res 2017;12(1):100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0601-4.
65. Nielsen NI, Kehlet H, Gromov K, et al. Preoperative high-dose Steroids in total
knee and hip arthroplasty - protocols for three randomized controlled trials.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2020;64(9):1350–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13656.
66. Schmidt SC, Hamann S, Langrehr JM, et al. Preoperative high-dose steroid
administration attenuates the surgical stress response following liver resection:
results of a prospective randomized study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007;
14(5):484–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-006-1200-7.
67. Yamashita Y, Shimada M, Hamatsu T, et al. Effects of preoperative steroid admin-
istration on surgical stress in hepatic resection: prospective randomized trial.
Arch Surg 2001;136(3):328–33. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.136.3.328.
68. Nagori SA, Jose A, Roy ID, et al. Does methylprednisolone improve postoperative
outcomes after mandibular third molar surgery? A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;48(6):787–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijom.2018.09.005.
69. Sauerland S, Nagelschmidt M, Mallmann P, et al. Risks and benefits of preoperative
high dose methylprednisolone in surgical patients. Drug Saf 2000;23:449–61.
70. POISE Study Group, Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of extended-
release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE
trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;371(9627):1839–47. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60601-7.
71. Blessberger H, Lewis SR, Pritchard MW, et al. Perioperative beta-blockers for
preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-
cardiac surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;9(9):CD013438. https://
doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013438.
72. Devereaux PJ, Sessler DI, Leslie K, et al. Clonidine in patients undergoing
noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2014;370(16):1504–13.
73. Andersen LPH, Werner MU, Rosenberg J, et al. A systematic review of peri-
operative melatonin. Anaesthesia 2014;69:1163–71.

Modifying Stress Response A CL 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modifying Stress Response A CL 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modifying Stress Response A CL 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M odifyin g t h e St res s

Anesthesiology Clin 40 (2022) 23–33

The physiologic response to surgery includes several characteristic metabolic changes

negative effect of this may be compounded by prolonged perioperative starvation times

Hypothermia is common under anesthesia and is the result of a combination of physical

HEMODYNAMICS AND OXYGEN DELIVERY

Successful hemodynamic management exists in equilibrium with surgical stress. The

cardiac output monitoring.4,24,25 Maintenance of oxygen delivery with an adequate

CLINICS CARE POINTS

6. Rawlinson A, Kang P, Evans J, et al. A systematic review of enhanced recovery

66(5):546–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-019-01330-x. Erratum in: Can J

59. Zhuo Y, Yu R, Wu C, et al. The role of perioperative intravenous low-dose dexa-

You might also like