3.9 Article

S100B level and cognitive dysfunction after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy procedures: a prospective observational study

Journal

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA
Volume 70, Issue 6, Pages 573-582

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2020.06.006

Keywords

S100B protein; Postoperative cognitive dysfunction; Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The present study investigated the association between Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction (POCD) and increased serum S100B level after Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (RALRP). Methods: The study included 82 consecutive patients who underwent RALRP. Serum S100B levels were determined preoperatively, after anesthesia induction, and at 30 minutes and 24 hours postoperatively. Cognitive function was assessed using neuropsychological testing preoperatively and at 7 days and 3 months postoperatively. Results: Twenty-four patients (29%) exhibited POCD 7 days after surgery, and 9 (11%) at 3 months after surgery. Serum S1008 levels were significantly increased at postoperative 30 minutes and 24 hours in patients displaying POCD at postoperative 7 days (p = 0.0001 for both) and 3 months (p = 0.001 for both) compared to patients without POCD. Duration of anesthesia was also significantly longer in patients with POCD at 7 days and 3 months after surgery compared with patients without POCD (p = 0.012, p = 0.001, respectively), as was duration of Trendelenburg (p = 0.025, p = 0.002, respectively). Composite Z score in tests performed on day 7 were significantly correlated with duration of Trendelenburg and duration of anesthesia (p = 0.0001 for both). Conclusions: S100B increases after RALRP and this increase is associated with POCD development. Duration of Trendelenburg position and anesthesia contribute to the development of POCD. (C) 2020 Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available