Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

Postoperative analgesia efficacy of erector spinae plane block in adult abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Objectives

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been used for many thoracic and abdominal surgeries. However, evidence of its analgesic efficacy following abdominal surgery, compared with that of thoracic analgesia, is insufficient. Our study explored the analgesic effect of ESPB after abdominal surgery.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes were pain scores at 6, 12 and 24 h and 24-h opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included time to first rescue analgesia, length of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for secondary outcomes.

Results

We systematically included 1,502 cases in 24 trials. Compared with placebo, ESPB significantly reduced pain scores at 6 h (SMD -1.25; 95% CI -1.79 to -0.71), 12 h (SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.37) and 24 h (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.30 to -0.37) and 24-h opioid consumption (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.06) post-surgery. ESPB prolonged the time to first rescue analgesia and decreased the incidence of PONV. Compared with transversus abdominal plane block (TAPB), ESPB significantly reduced pain scores at 6, 12, and 24 h and 24-h opioid consumption and prolonged the time to first rescue analgesia postsurgically. Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that ESPB significantly reduced pain scores at various time points and opioid consumption within 24 h after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and bariatric surgery.

Conclusion

Compared with placebo, ESPB improves the postoperative analgesic efficacy after abdominal surgery. Furthermore, our meta-analysis confirmed that ESPB provides more beneficial analgesic efficacy than TAPB.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/301491_STRATEGY_20220104.pdf], identifier [CRD42022301491].

Transversus abdominis plane blocks for complex abdominal wall reconstruction decrease hospital length of stay compared to epidurals

BACKGROUND

Complex abdominal wall reconstruction for ventral and incisional hernias can be quite painful with prolonged length of stay (LOS). There are a variety of options to manage post-operative pain after a ventral hernia repair, including epidural catheters, transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks, and intravenous narcotic pain medications (IVPM). We hypothesized that TAP blocks with liposomal bupivacaine decrease the LOS compared to epidurals and IVPM.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent an open ventral hernia repair with retromuscular mesh between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. LOS was used as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included post-operative pain and 90-day post-operative complications.

RESULTS

An epidural was used in 66 patients, a TAP block with liposomal bupivacaine in 18 patients, and IVPM in 11 patients. The epidural group was noted to have a significantly longer duration of surgery (251.11 vs. 207.94 min; P < 0.05) and larger area of mesh (461.85 vs. 338.17 cm²; P < 0.05) when compared to the TAP block group. Hospital LOS was significantly shorter for the TAP block group compared to the epidural group (4.22 vs. 5.62 days; P < 0.05). There were no differences in post-operative complications between the groups. The epidural group reported significantly lower post-operative day one (POD1) pain scores measured on a 10-point scale, compared to the IVPM and TAP block groups (5.00 vs. 6.91 vs. 7.50; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients who received a TAP block for post-operative pain management had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to those patients who received an epidural. While the TAP block group reported higher POD1 pain scores, they did not have a significant difference in post-operative complications. TAP blocks with liposomal bupivacaine should be considered for post-operative pain control in complex ventral hernia repairs.

Intercostal Cryo Nerve Block in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: The Prospective Randomized FROST Trial

INTRODUCTION

Intercostal cryo nerve block has been shown to enhance pulmonary function recovery and pain management in post-thoracotomy procedures. However, its benefit have never been demonstrated in minimal invasive thoracotomy heart valve surgery (Mini-HVS). The purpose of the study was to determine whether intraoperative intercostal cryo nerve block in conjunction with standard of care (collectively referred to hereafter as CryoNB) provided superior analgesic efficacy in patients undergoing Mini-HVS compared to standard-of-care (SOC).

METHODS

FROST was a prospective, 3:1 randomized (CryoNB vs. SOC), multicenter trial in patients undergoing Mini-HVS. The primary endpoint was the 48-h postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) result. Secondary endpoints were visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain at the surgical site and general pain, intensive care unit and hospital length-of-stay, total opioid consumption, and allodynia at 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients were randomized to the two arms of the trial CryoNB (n = 65) and SOC (n = 19). Baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictive Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) score, ejection fraction, and FEV1 were similar between cohorts. A higher 48-h postoperative FEV1 result was demonstrated in the CryoNB cohort versus the SOC cohort (1.20 ± 0.46 vs. 0.93 ± 0.43 L; P = 0.02, one-sided two-sample t test). Surgical site VAS scores were similar between the CryoNB and SOC cohorts at all postoperative timepoints evaluated, but VAS scores not related to the surgical site were lower in the SOC group at 72, 94, and 120 h postoperatively. The SOC cohort had a 13% higher opioid consumption than the CryoNB cohort. One of 64 CryoNB patients reported allodynia that did not require pain medication at 10 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of FROST demonstrated that intercostal CryoNB provided enhanced FEV1 score at 48 h postoperatively with optimized analgesic effectiveness versus SOC. Future larger prospective randomized trials are warranted to determine whether intercostal CryoNB has an opioid-sparing effect in patients undergoing Mini-HVS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02922153.

Is It Time to Reconsider Postoperative Epidural Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Elective Ventral Hernia Repair?: An AHSQC Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the association of epidural analgesia (EA) with hospital length of stay (LOS), wound morbidity, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR).

BACKGROUND

EA has been shown to reduce LOS in certain surgical populations. The LOS benefit in VHR is unclear.

METHODS

Patients having VHR performed in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) were separated into 2 comparable groups matched on several confounding factors using a propensity score algorithm: one group received postoperative EA, and the other did not. The groups were then evaluated for hospital LOS, 30-day wound morbidity, other complications, and 30-day patient-reported outcomes using pain and hernia-specific quality-of-life instruments.

RESULTS

A 1:1 match was achieved and the final analysis included 763 patients receiving EA and 763 not receiving EA. The EA group had an increased LOS (5.49 vs 4.90 days; P < 0.05). The rate of wound events was similar between the groups. There was an increased risk of having any postoperative complication associated with having EA (26% vs 21%; P < 0.05). Pain intensity-scaled scores were significantly higher (worse) in the EA group versus the non-EA group (47.6 vs 44.0; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The LOS benefit of EA noted for other operations may not apply to patients undergoing VHR. Further study is necessary to determine the beneficial role of invasive pain management procedures in this group of patients with an extremely common disease state.

Complications of continuous catheter analgesia for postoperative pain management in a tertiary care hospital. Incidence of technical complications and alternative analgesia methods used

BACKGROUND

Continuous invasive analgesia remains the gold-standard method for managing acute post-operative pain after major surgery. However, this procedure is not exempt from complications that may have detrimental effects on the patient and affect the post-operative recovery process. Data of the complications of continuous catheter analgesic techniques (CCATs) and their impact on pain relief are scarce in the literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective longitudinal study and patients who underwent a surgical procedure and received continuous invasive analgesia after surgery were included. Post-operative analgesic strategy, pain scores (NRS), CCAT's characteristics and technical complications were recorded. Patient satisfaction was determined. Descriptive statistics and Student's t-tests were applied for the comparative analyses.

RESULTS

We collected data from 106 patients. Mean duration of the CCAT was 47.52±21.23hours and 52 patients (49.1%) were controlled in conventional hospitalisation units whereas 54 patients (50.9%) were controlled on intensive or high-dependency care units. The overall incidence of technical complications was 9.43%. The most common complications were catheter displacement (2.38%), inflammation at the IV catheter insertion point (2.38%) and excessive dosing of analgesic drugs (2.38%). Mean NRS scores were ≤3 during the permanence of CCATs. Maximum pain intensity was significantly higher in patients who suffered technical complications (mean±standard deviation [x̅ ± SD]: 4.4 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 1.9; P<0.05). Satisfaction levels with the technique and overall satisfaction with the pain management strategy were negatively impacted by the occurrence of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of technical complications of CCATs was 9.43% and had a negative impact in pain control and patient's satisfaction.

Comparison of the effects of patient-controlled epidural and intravenous analgesia on postoperative bowel function after laparoscopic gastrectomy: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces surgical trauma compared to open surgery, postoperative ileus is a frequent and significant complication after abdominal surgery. Unlike laparoscopic colorectal surgery, the effects of epidural analgesia on postoperative recovery after laparoscopic gastrectomy are not well established. We compared the effects of epidural analgesia to those of conventional intravenous (IV) analgesia on the recovery of bowel function after laparoscopic gastrectomy.

METHOD

Eighty-six patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy randomly received either patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine and fentanyl (Epi PCA group) or patient-controlled IV analgesia with fentanyl (IV PCA group), beginning immediately before incision and continuing for 48 h thereafter. The primary endpoint was recovery of bowel function, evaluated by the time to first flatus. The balance of the autonomic nervous system, pain scores, duration of postoperative hospital stay, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

The time to first flatus was shorter in the epidural PCA group compared with the IV PCA group (61.3 ± 11.1 vs. 70.0 ± 12.3 h, P = 0.001). Low-frequency/high-frequency power ratios during surgery were significantly higher in the IV PCA group, compared with baseline and those in the epidural PCA group. The epidural PCA group had lower pain scores during the first 1 h postoperatively and required less analgesics during the first 6 h postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IV PCA, epidural PCA facilitated postoperative recovery of bowel function after laparoscopic gastrectomy without increasing the length of hospital stay or PCA-related complications. This beneficial effect of epidural analgesia might be attributed to attenuation of sympathetic hyperactivation, improved analgesia, and reduced opioid use.

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults undergoing elective abdominal aortic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and five trial registers in November 2014, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data when required. We assessed the level of evidence according to the scale provided by the GRADE working group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials published from 1987 to 2009 with 1498 participants in this updated review. Participants had a mean age between 60.5 and 71.3 years. The percentage of women in the included studies varied from 0% to 28.1%. Adding an epidural to general anaesthesia for people undergoing abdominal aortic repair reduced myocardial infarction (risk ratio (RR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.97); I(2) statistic = 0%; number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 28 (95% CI 19 to 1423), visual or verbal analogical scale (VAS) scores up to three days after the surgery (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.32 to -1.25); I(2) statistic = 0% for VAS scores on movement at postoperative day one), time to tracheal extubation (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.15); I(2) statistic = 83%; equivalent to a mean reduction of 36 hours), postoperative respiratory failure (RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.85); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 8 (95% CI 6 to 16)), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 32 (95% CI 27 to 74)) and time spent in the intensive care unit (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.06); I(2) statistic = 0%; equivalent to a mean reduction of six hours). We did not demonstrate a reduction in the mortality rate up to 30 days (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.86); I(2) statistic = 0%). The level of evidence was low for mortality and time before tracheal extubation; moderate for myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and intensive care unit length of stay; and high for gastrointestinal bleeding and VAS scores.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia provided better pain management, reduced myocardial infarction, time to tracheal extubation, postoperative respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intensive care unit length of stay compared with systemic opioid-based drugs. For mortality, we did not find a difference at 30 days.

Epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief in patients undergoing open liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia has been the reference standard for the provision of post-operative pain relief in patients recovering from major upper abdominal operations, including liver resections. However, a failure rate of 20-32% has been reported.

AIM

The aim of the study was to analyse the success rates of epidural analgesia and the outcome in patients who underwent liver surgery.

METHODS

We collected data from a prospectively maintained database of 70 patients who underwent open liver surgery by a bilateral subcostal incision during a period of 20 months (February 2009 to September 2010). Anaesthetic consultants with expertise in anaesthesia for liver surgery performed the epidural catheter placement. A dedicated pain team assessed the post-operative pain scores on moving or coughing using the Verbal Descriptor Scale. The outcome was measured in terms of epidural success rates, pain scores, post-operative chest infection and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The study group included 43 males and 27 females. The indication for resection was liver secondaries (70%), primary tumours (19%) and benign disease (11%). While major (≥3 segments) and minor resections (≤ 2 segments) were performed in 44% and 47% respectively, 9% of patients were inoperable. Epidural analgesia was successful in 64 patients (91%). Bacterial colonisation of epidural tip was noticed in two patients. However, no neurological complications were encountered. Five patients (7%) had radiologically confirmed chest infection. Four patients (6%) developed wound infection. One patient died due to liver failure following extended right hepatectomy and cholecystectomy for gall bladder cancer. The median length of stay was 6 days (3-27 days). The extent of liver resection (p = 0.026) and post-operative chest infection (p = 0.012) had a significant influence on the length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Our experience shows that epidural analgesia is safe and effective in providing adequate pain relief following open liver surgery.

The impact of epidural analgesia compared to systemic opioid-based analgesia with regard to length of hospital stay and recovery of bowel function: retrospective evaluation of 1555 patients undergoing thoracotomy

Background

To assess the protocols of epidural analgesia versus systemic opioid-based analgesia retrospectively in 1555 thoracotomies in our thoracic centre during 2011–2013.

Methods

Pain therapy is aggressive and standardized in our thoracic centre thoughout the complete postoperative stay. Patients receive either standardized epidural analgesia with ropivacaine + sufentanil 4–8 mls/h (500 mls bag) and are bridged when the epidural bag is finished to a standardized controlled-release oxycodone protocol with non opioid every 6 hours (EDA Group), or patients receive immediately postoperative standardized oral analgesic protocol with controlled-released oxycodone and non opioid every 6 h (Opioid Group). All patients are visited daily by a pain specialist throughout the whole stay.

Results

Data of 1555 thoracotomies from 2011-2013 were analysed, 838 patients in the EDA Group and 717 patients in the Opioid Group. There was no difference with regard to sex or age between groups. 7.5% of patients in the EDA Group and 13% in the Oxy Group had a preexisting pain therapy (p = 0.001). In the EDA Group epidural analgesia was performed for 4.6 ± 1.5 days. Length of hospital stay was the same in both groups (EDA: 9.9.6 ± 4.9 vs Opioid: 9.6 ± 5.8 days). 84.7% of patients in the EDA Group and 79.1% of patients of the Oxy Group were dismissed with oral opioid (p < 0.004). When patients were dismissed with opioid medication patients in the EDA Group were dismissed with higher oxycodone opioid doses than patients in the Opioid Group (29.5 ± 15.2 mg vs 26.9 ± 15.2 mg, p = 0.01). There was no difference with regard to dejection time between the two groups (EDA: 3.8 ± 2.2 days vs Opioid: 3.7 ± 1.6 days, n.s.).

Conclusion

We first present data monitoring postoperative analgesic protocols after thoracotomies throughout the whole stay in hospital until dismission. Our retrospective data indicate that patients with epidural analgesia stay as long in hospital as patients with systemic opioid based therapy. Patients with initial epidural analgesia are dismissed with higher oxycodone opioid doses than patients with initial opioid based postoperative analgesia. We found no difference in recovery of bowel function.

Study limitations

The study design is retrospectively and results might be biased.

Factors influencing the quality of postoperative epidural analgesia: an observational multicenter study

Background

Epidural analgesia (EDA) is used widely for postoperative pain treatment. However, studies have reported a failure rate of EDA of up to 30%. We aimed to evaluate the quality of postoperative EDA in patients undergoing a laparotomy in five Norwegian hospitals.

Methods

This was a multicenter observational study in patients undergoing a laparotomy with epidural-based postoperative analgesia. Data were registered at three time points. Technical aspects, infusion rates, pain intensity, assessment procedures, side effects, and satisfaction of patients and health personnel were recorded. The use of other pain medications and coanalgesics was registered.

Results

Three hundred and seventeen patients were included. Pain control at rest was satisfactory in 89% of patients at 24 hours and in 91% at 48 hours. Pain control when coughing was satisfactory in 62% at 24 hours and in 59% at 48 hours. The spread of hypoesthesia was consistent for each individual patient but varied between patients. The hypoesthetic area was not associated with pain intensity, and the precision of the EDA insertion point was not associated with the pain score. Few side effects were reported. EDA was regarded as effective and functioning well by 64% of health personnel.

Conclusion

EDA was an effective method for postoperative pain relief at rest but did not give sufficient pain relief during mobilization. The use of cold stimulation to assess the spread of EDA had limited value as a clinical indicator of the efficacy of postoperative pain control. Validated tools for the control of EDA quality are needed.

Comparative safety of anesthetic type for hip fracture surgery in adults: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of anesthesia type on the risk of in-hospital mortality among adults undergoing hip fracture surgery in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Premier research database, United States.

PARTICIPANTS

73,284 adults undergoing hip fracture surgery on hospital day 2 or greater between 2007 and 2011. Of those, 61,554 (84.0%) received general anesthesia, 6939 (9.5%) regional anesthesia, and 4791 (6.5%) combined general and regional anesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

In-hospital all cause mortality.

RESULTS

In-hospital deaths occurred in 1362 (2.2%) patients receiving general anesthesia, 144 (2.1%) receiving regional anesthesia, and 115 (2.4%) receiving combined anesthesia. In the multivariable adjusted analysis, when compared with general anesthesia the mortality risk did not differ significantly between regional anesthesia (risk ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.11) or combined anesthesia (1.00, 0.82 to 1.22). A mixed effects analysis accounting for differences between hospitals produced similar results: compared with general anesthesia the risk from regional anesthesia was 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10) and from combined anesthesia was 0.98 (0.79 to 1.21). Findings were also consistent in subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationwide sample of hospital admissions, mortality risk did not differ significantly by anesthesia type among patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Our results suggest that if the previously posited beneficial effect of regional anesthesia on short term mortality exists, it is likely to be more modest than previously reported.

Perioperative multimodal anesthesia using regional techniques in the aging surgical patient

Background. Elderly patients have unique age-related comorbidities that may lead to an increase in postoperative complications involving neurological, pulmonary, cardiac, and endocrine systems. There has been an increase in the number of elderly patients undergoing surgery as this portion of the population is increasing in numbers. Despite advances in perioperative anesthesia and analgesia along with improved delivery systems, monotherapy with opioids continues to be the mainstay for treatment of postop pain. Reliance on only opioids can oftentimes lead to inadequate pain control or increase in the incidence of adverse events. Multimodal analgesia incorporating regional anesthesia is a promising alternative that may reduce needs for high doses and dependence on opioids along with any potential associated adverse effects. Methods. The following databases were searched for relevant published trials: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed. Textbooks and meeting supplements were also utilized. The authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. Conclusions. Multimodal drug therapy and perioperative regional techniques can be very effective to perioperative pain management in the elderly. Regional anesthesia as part of multimodal perioperative treatment can often reduce postoperative neurological, pulmonary, cardiac, and endocrine complications. Regional anesthesia/analgesia has not been proven to improve long-term morbidity but does benefit immediate postoperative pain control. In addition, multimodal drug therapy utilizes a variety of nonopioid analgesic medications in order to minimize dosages and adverse effects from opioids while maximizing analgesic effect and benefit.

Neuraxial anesthesia decreases postoperative systemic infection risk compared with general anesthesia in knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Surgical stress has been shown to result in immune disturbance. Neuraxial anesthesia (NA) has long been hypothesized to blunt undesired surgical insults and thus limit immune compromise and improve surgical outcomes. We hypothesized that NA would decrease postoperative infectious complications compared with general anesthesia (GA) among knee arthroplasty patients.

METHODS

We studied the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2010. There were 16,555 patients included in our final cohort, with 9167 patients receiving GA and 7388 patients receiving spinal or epidural anesthesia.. Outcomes of interest included infection-related 30-day postoperative complications, including surgical site-related infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, sepsis, septic shock, and a composite end point of any systemic infection. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to test for effect of anesthesia type while adjusting for the influence of preexisting comorbidities.

RESULTS

The overall mortality was 0.24% and 0.15% among NA and GA subjects, respectively (P = 0.214). NA subjects had fewer unadjusted incidences of pneumonia (P = 0.035) and composite systemic infection (P = 0.006). After risk adjustment for preexisting comorbidities, NA was associated with lower odds of pneumonia (odds ratio = 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90]) and lower odds of composite systemic infection (odds ratio = 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.92]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that NA was associated with lower adjusted odds of both pneumonia and a composite outcome of any systemic infectious complication within 30 days of surgery compared with GA.

Impact of anesthesia technique on the incidence of major complications after open aortic abdominal surgery: a cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk factors of perioperative complications and the impact of intrathecal morphine (ITM) in major vascular surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort.

SETTINGS

Operating room, intensive care unit, and Postanesthesia Care Unit of a university hospital.

MEASUREMENTS

Data from 595 consecutive patients who underwent open abdominal aortic surgery between January 1997 and December 2011 were reviewed. Data were stratified into three groups based on the analgesia technique delivered: systemic analgesia (Goup SA), thoracic epidural analgesia (Group TEA), and intrathecal morphine (Group ITM). Preoperative patient characteristics, perioperative anesthetic and medical interventions, and major nonsurgical complications were recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

Patients managed with ITM (n=248) and those given thoracic epidural analgesia (n=70) required lower doses of intravenous (IV) sufentanil intraoperatively and were extubated sooner than those who received systemic analgesia (n=270). Total inhospital mortality was 2.9%, and 24.4% of patients experienced at least one major complication during their hospital stay. Intrathecal morphine was associated with a lower risk of postoperative morbidity (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 - 0.89), particularly pulmonary complications (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.93) and renal dysfunction (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 - 0.97). Other predictors of nonsurgical complications were ASA physical status 3 and 4 (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.07 - 3.52), preoperative renal dysfunction (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.01 - 2.58), prolonged surgical time (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.16 - 2.78), and the need for blood transfusion (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.99).

CONCLUSIONS

This single-center study showed a decreased risk of major nonsurgical complications in patients who received neuraxial analgesia after abdominal aortic surgery.

Pain management in the ICU

Pain management in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a complex process. Both the experience of pain as well as its treatment can have consequences relating to the overall outcome of the patient. Further, lack of the ability of many patients in the ICU to communicate their distress makes it even more critical for the ICU practitioner to understand the typical causes of pain in this setting and the applicability of many pain management regimens.

Local versus epidural anesthesia in fast-track abdominal aortic surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate a possible alternative to epidural anesthesia/analgesia. The authors compared thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia with continuous wound infiltration anesthesia/analgesia in patients scheduled for mini-invasive abdominal aortic surgery in a fast-track setting.

DESIGN

A prospective randomized study.

SETTING

A university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty patients undergoing fast-track abdominal aortic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

The authors compared thoracic epidural infusion (the PERI group) with continuous local wound infiltration (the LOC group) for anesthesia/analgesia. Pain scores, the resumption of oral feeding, the resumption of ambulation, the day of discharge, and postoperative complications in the immediate (ie, 30 days) and long-term periods (ie, 2 years) were evaluated.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pain scores were low in both groups. The intraoperative LOC group needed higher doses of anesthetic/analgesic drugs. The postoperative LOC group needed significantly higher doses of bupivacaine (3.9 ± 0.7 mL/h [PERI group] and 5.7 ± 1.3 mL/h [LOC group] on day 0 [p < 0.01]; 3.8 ± 0.8 mL/h [PERI group] and 5.3 ± 1 mL/h [LOC group] on day 1 [p < 0.01]). The parameters of postoperative recovery were comparable between the 2 groups in terms of the resumption of ambulation after surgery (within 3 hours), feeding (within 6 hours), the passage of stools (mean 2 days), and the median hospital stay (3 days). In the 2-year follow-up period, a difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of wound complications was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained showed good and similar pain control in the 2 groups, but the LOC group required higher doses of anesthetic/analgesic drugs. Parameters of the postoperative recovery were similar in both groups.

Minimum current requirement for confirming the localization of an epiradicular catheter placement

Background

Based on the necessity to confirm the epiradicular catheter misplacement, epiradicular threshold current for the confirmation of catheter tip localization is required.

Methods

Thirty-four adult patients with low extremity radiating pain were to receive epiradicular catheterization at the lumbosacral level. The epidural space was accessed percutaneously in cranial to caudal direction. A metal coil-reinforced epidural catheter was inserted and advanced caudolaterally toward the target neural foramen until the catheter tip was located below the bisection of pedicle. The electrical stimulation was performed after catheter placement in epidural and epiradicular space. Using the constant current nerve stimulator, the stimulating current was increased from 0 to 5 mA (pulse width of 0.3 ms; frequency of 2 Hz) until adequate motor contraction was evident. The threshold current for motor response with epidural space (EDmA) and epiradicular space (ERmA) placement were recorded upon electrical stimulation. In addition, the threshold charge for motor response with epidural (EDnC) and epiradicular (ERnC) placement were recorded.

Results

Of 34 catheters intentionally placed in the epiradicular space, ERmA was 0.53 ± 0.48 mA. The ERnC was significantly lower than EDnC (P < 0.05). The EDmA and ERmA were below 1 mA in 3 patients and above 1 mA in 4 patients, respectively.

Conclusions

We conclude that, threshold current for motor response seems to be lower for epiradicular compared with epidural placement, although we were not able to directly investigate the epidural threshold current. The threshold current of epiradicular space overlap that in the epidural space.

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based pain relief for adult patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11) via Ovid; Ovid MEDLINE (from inception to week 1 November 2010); and EMBASE (from inception to week 1, November 2010). The original search was performed in 2004. We assessed non-English language reports and contacted researchers in the field. We did not seek unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adult patients who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials that involved 1297 patients (633 patients received epidural analgesia and 664 received systemic opioid analgesia) in this review. This included one trial we found in our updated search and one trial from our original review that had been awaiting translation. The epidural analgesia group showed significantly lower visual analogue scale scores for pain on movement (up to postoperative day three) regardless of the site of the epidural catheter and epidural formulation. The postoperative duration of tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter, by about 48%, in the epidural analgesia group. The overall event rates of myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure (defined as an extended need for mechanical ventilation), gastrointestinal complications, and renal complications were significantly lower in the epidural analgesia group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia provides better pain relief (especially during movement) in the period up to three postoperative days. It reduces the duration of postoperative tracheal intubation by roughly half. The occurrence of prolonged postoperative mechanical ventilation, myocardial infarction, gastric complications and renal complications was reduced by epidural analgesia. However, current evidence does not confirm the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on postoperative mortality and other types of complications.

[Cardioprotection by thoracic epidural anesthesia? : meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) is thought to provide cardioprotective effects in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The results of two previous meta-analysis showed controversial conclusions regarding the impact of EDA on perioperative survival. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate, whether thoracic EDA has the potential to reduce perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality on the basis of available randomized controlled trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in medical databases (Med-Line, EBM-Reviews, Embase, Biosis and Biological Abstracts) and relevant clinical trials including patients undergoing noncardiac surgery were evaluated by two independent investigators. All randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of thoracic EDA on perioperative outcome, published from 1980 up to the end of 2008 were included into this quantitative systematic review. Calculations were performed using the statistics program Review Manager 4.1 using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine studies with a total of 2,768 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Thoracic EDA did not reduce perioperative mortality [odds ratio (Peto OR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.58]. Patients receiving thoracic EDA demonstrated a tendency to a lower rate of perioperative myocardial infarction. However, this effect of thoracic EDA did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.4-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis did not prove any positive influence of thoracic EDA on perioperative in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Furthermore, it remains questionable if thoracic EDA has the potential to reduce the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction.

[Post-operative pain management in hospitals]

BACKGROUND

Relief of post-operative pain has a bearing on the patient's well-being, mobilisation and time confined to bed. The article discusses indications, contraindications and the efficacy of the various treatment modalities.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We have examined review articles, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials, identified through literature searches in PubMed.

RESULTS

The use of several medicines and techniques (multimodal pain treatment) is necessary to achieve a good balance between pain relief, side effects and risk. Systemic administration of paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioids and glucocorticoids is effective for post-operative pain. The same applies to epidural analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks and local anaesthetic wound infiltration. Subanaesthetic doses of ketamine have an opioid-sparing effect, but the optimal dosing regimen is uncertain. Gabapentinoids have an effect on post-operative pain, but the effect appears to vary depending on the type of operation and analgesic regimen. The effect of one analgesic will depend on which other drugs are used in multimodal pain treatment. Epidural analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks or extensive local infiltration analgesia is often necessary to relieve movement-related pain.

INTERPRETATION

Many treatment modalities are effective for post-operative pain. It is crucial that the treatment is well organised and that it includes routines for systematic pain assessment, efficacy and side effects of the pain management.

Treatment of acute postoperative pain

Although postoperative pain remains incompletely controlled in some settings, increased understanding of its mechanisms and the development of several therapeutic approaches have substantially improved pain control in past years. Advances in our understanding of the process of nociception have led to insight into gene-based pain therapy, the development of acute opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and persistent postsurgical pain. Use of specific analgesic techniques such as regional analgesia could improve patient outcomes. We also examine the development of new analgesic agents and treatment modalities and regimens for acute postoperative pain.

Pain management in peripheral arterial obstructive disease: oral slow-release oxycodone versus epidural l-bupivacaine

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of oral slow-release oxycodone (group OX, n=18) with that of epidural l-bupivacaine (group LRA, n=13) for the control of moderate/severe pain of advanced-stage peripheral arterial obstructive disease (PAOD) patients.

DESIGN

Observational and retrospective analysis of advanced stage and hospitalised PAOD patients treated for pain management for at least 7 days prior to surgery or discharged from the hospital without surgery.

METHODS

The outcome measures were pain intensity using the visual analogue scale under static, (VASs) and dynamic (VASd) conditions; vital signs, treatment side effects and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

In both groups, pain control was satisfactory and VAS scores median were VASs<3 and VASd<4; under dynamic conditions, pain control was better in the LRA group (p<0.01). Against few and transient side effects, most patients (n=30) found both pain treatments good or excellent. Results should be confirmed by studies with larger samples.

CONCLUSIONS

In the perioperative setting, the epidural infusion of local anaesthetics, such as l-bupivacaine, is an effective technique for pain control in PAOD patients; for patients with contraindication for this technique or for non-surgical or outpatients, slow-release oxycodone is suggested as a possible alternative for the control of severe pain in these patients.

[Regional analgesia--risks and benefits]

BACKGROUND

Local anaesthetics may alleviate pain more effectively than any other anaesthetic method. In regional anaesthesia/analgesia, rare but serious complications make it necessary to always consider the risk-benefit ratio. The article discusses these issues and gives advice on effective and safe conduct.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The article is based on non-systematic literature searches in the PubMed and Cochrane databases and our own experience from research and clinical work.

RESULTS

Regional anaesthesia is obtained by administering local anaesthetics near the spinal cord and nerve roots (spinal, epidural), spinal nerves (paravertebral), or close to peripheral nerves. Parts of the body will then become numb and paralysed. The same techniques are used for regional analgesia, but this is obtained by using more dilute solutions of local anaesthetics, and other analgesic drugs are often added. Pain impulses are inhibited, but sensation of touch and muscle functions are intact. Regional analgesia gives superior relief of pain provoked by movement. This facilitates early postoperative mobilization of patients, even after major surgery in weak patients. For these patients optimally performed regional analgesia may reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality better than general anaesthesia and opioid and non-opioid analgesics administered postoperatively. Infiltration of the wound with local anaesthetics followed by optimally dosed non-opioid and opioid analgesics is a good alternative for some types of surgery. The risk of spinal bleeding has increased due to increased patient age, routine thromboprophylaxis and frequent use of antihaemostatic drugs, including platelet inhibitors. Infections in the spinal cord are caused by insufficient hygiene. Selection of patients who are likely to benefit from regional anaesthesia/analgesia, strict hygienic precautions, optimal technique, close monitoring, and assistance from an acute pain team, as well as hospital protocols for handling rare but serious complications, have reduced the occurrence and consequences of serious complications.

INTERPRETATION

Optimal regional anaesthesia/analgesia may improve the postoperative result.

Nordic guidelines for neuraxial blocks in disturbed haemostasis from the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

Central neuraxial blocks (CNBs) for surgery and analgesia are an important part of anaesthesia practice in the Nordic countries. More active thromboprophylaxis with potent antihaemostatic drugs has increased the risk of bleeding into the spinal canal. National guidelines for minimizing this risk in patients who benefit from such blocks vary in their recommendations for safe practice.

METHODS

The Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) appointed a task force of experts to establish a Nordic consensus on recommendations for best clinical practice in providing effective and safe CNBs in patients with an increased risk of bleeding. We performed a literature search and expert evaluation of evidence for (1) the possible benefits of CNBs on the outcome of anaesthesia and surgery, for (2) risks of spinal bleeding from hereditary and acquired bleeding disorders and antihaemostatic drugs used in surgical patients for thromboprophylaxis, for (3) risk evaluation in published case reports, and for (4) recommendations in published national guidelines. Proposals from the taskforce were available for feedback on the SSAI web-page during the summer of 2008.

RESULTS

Neuraxial blocks can improve comfort and reduce morbidity (strong evidence) and mortality (moderate evidence) after surgical procedures. Haemostatic disorders, antihaemostatic drugs, anatomical abnormalities of the spine and spinal blood vessels, elderly patients, and renal and hepatic impairment are risk factors for spinal bleeding (strong evidence). Published national guidelines are mainly based on experts' opinions (weak evidence). The task force reached a consensus on Nordic guidelines, mainly based on our experts' opinions, but we acknowledge different practices in heparinization during vascular surgery and peri-operative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during neuraxial blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts from the five Nordic countries offer consensus recommendations for safe clinical practice of neuraxial blocks and how to minimize the risks of serious complications from spinal bleeding. A brief version of the recommendations is available on http://www.ssai.info.

Epidural analgesia improves outcome in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The authors conducted a review of randomized studies to determine whether there were any advantages for clinically relevant outcomes by adding epidural analgesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2366 patients from 33 randomized trials.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

PubMed, BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched (updated January 2008) for randomized trials that compared general anesthesia with an anesthetic plan including general anesthesia and epidural analgesia in cardiac surgery. Two independent reviewers appraised study quality, with divergences resolved by consensus. Overall analysis showed that epidural analgesia reduced the risk of the composite endpoint mortality and myocardial infarction (30/1125 [2.7%] in the epidural group v 64/1241 [5.2%] in the control arm, odds ratio [OR] = 0.61 [0.40-0.95], p = 0.03 number needed to treat [NNT] = 40), the risk of acute renal failure (35/590 [5.9%] in the epidural group v 54/618 [8.7%] in the control arm, OR = 0.56 [0.34-0.93], p = 0.02, NNT = 36), and the time of mechanical ventilation (weighted mean differences = -2.48 hours [-2.64, -2.32], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggested that epidural analgesia on top of general anesthesia reduced the incidence of perioperative acute renal failure, the time on mechanical ventilation, and the composite endpoint of mortality and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

[Anesthesiologic procedure for elective aortic surgery]

Aortic aneurysms are frequent in the elderly who often suffer from relevant co-morbidities. In Germany it is estimated that approximately 250,000 patients suffer from an aortic aneurysm. Due to the high risk of cardiac or pulmonary complications operative management poses a challenge to the anesthesiologist. Especially hemodynamic management during aortic cross-clamping requires anesthesiologic know-how and an anticipatory use of vasodilators and catecholamines. Furthermore, the anesthesiologist has to protect renal function. In order to avoid paraplegia due to spinal ischemia cerebrospinal fluid drainage may be necessary in patients with aneurysms of the thoracic aorta. In recent years endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms has been established in addition to conventional open surgery. As a consequence in some patients aortic surgery can be performed under regional or local anesthesia. In special cases thoracic endovascular repair requires a medicinal induction of heart arrest or the reduction of aortic blood flow by overpacing.

The incidence of epidural abscess following epidural analgesia in open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION

Complications of epidural catheterisation can cause significant morbidity. Epidural abscess following epidural catheterisation is rare and the reported incidence is variable. The purpose of this study was to review the incidence of epidural abscess in patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case note review of all patients having open AAA repair over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 415 patients underwent open AAA repair between January 2003 and March 2008. Of these, 290 were elective procedures and 125 were for ruptured aneurysms. Six patients underwent postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of the spine for clinical suspicion of an epidural abscess. Two of these (0.48%) had confirmed epidural abscess and two superficial infection at the epidural site.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of epidural abscess following epidural analgesia in patients undergoing open AAA repair within our department was 0.48%. Although a rare complication, epidural abscess can cause significant morbidity. Epidural abscesses rarely develop before the third postoperative day.

[Fast track in vascular surgery]

Vascular comorbidities are common in vascular surgery, being associated with perioperative complications. Since it was demonstrated that the postoperative course could be optimized by introduction of the fast track concept in general surgery, application to vascular surgery may also be of benefit. The fast track concept was introduced in our institution on May 1st 2008 with special adjustments for vascular surgery. The authors describe the development and implementation of a clinical pathway, which proved to be of value in vascular surgery.

[New trends in the treatment of post-operative pain in general and gastrointestinal surgery]

The correct application of multimodal analgesia appropriate to the pain intensity, the characteristics of the surgery and the hospitalisation scheme provide the key to improving the management of postoperative pain, which is currently still under treated. In highly complex surgeries the best benefit is obtained by combining systemic analgesic drugs with regional analgesia techniques. Epidural analgesia, not only provides an excellent quality of analgesia, but can prevent complications and reduce postoperative morbidity. Recently, peripheral blocks and parietal infiltration techniques, with or without catheter, have gained prominence in the postoperative analgesia of haemorrhoids and hernia repair. All these analgesic techniques are integrated into the concept of early postoperative rehabilitation and pursue the objective of minimising the side effects associated with the treatment and facilitate the functional recovery of the patient. In addition, proper postoperative pain management, not only increases the quality of in-patient care but is also a factor to consider in the development of chronic post-surgical pain, where the impact is significant and impairs the quality of life of the patients.

Epidural analgesia diminished pain but did not otherwise improve enhanced recovery after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The primary hypothesis for this study was that epidural analgesia reduces the use of opioids and thus advances bowel function and oral intake and shortens hospital stay after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy performed according to principles of enhanced recovery after surgery.

METHODS

For this study, 60 patients with complicated diverticular disease were randomized to the epidural anesthesia group or the control group before surgery. Postoperative oxycodone consumption, pain, and recovery parameters were followed for 14 days.

RESULTS

The epidural group needed less oxycodone than the control group until 12 h postoperatively. They experienced significantly less pain related to coughing and motion until postoperative day 2. In the epidural group, fewer patients experienced significant pain, and the duration of postoperative pain was shorter. Postoperative oral intake, bowel function, hospital stay, and overall complication rate were similar in the two groups. However, the control group had more postoperative hematomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia significantly alleviates pain, reducing the need for opioids during the first 48 h after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. However, epidural analgesia does not alter postoperative oral intake, mobilization, or length of hospital stay.

Perioperative epidural anaesthesia and analgesia--an appraisal of its role

Perioperative epidural anaesthesia and analgesia (PEA) has become controversial because of its doubtful effect on patient outcome and its serious complications. These scientific considerations have been affected by the changing medicolegal climate in Australia and has led to a reappraisal of this technique in our practice of anaesthesia. Many anaesthetists are now uncertain about indications, consent requirements, optimal management and the prevention and early detection of complications of PEA. The aim of this paper is to present a personal perspective of the place and use of PEA in current anaesthetic practise. The primary indication for PEA should be pain relief for open abdominal or thoracic surgery because there is level 1 evidence that it provides better analgesia than parenteral opioids. There is reasonable evidence that outcome is improved but the studies are conflicting. Coagulation status needs to be assessed carefully before the insertion and removal of epidural catheters. Consent issues are difficult in practice, both from the timing and the content of the information. The decrease in the use of PEA may paradoxically result in more complications as loss of expertise becomes an issue. PEA is labour intensive and therefore needs the support of an Acute Pain Service in order to use this technique safely and recognise problems early. Permanent neurological complications are the most feared complication of this technique but early recognition of these problems can improve outcome. These complications need to be balanced against the potentially serious hypoxaemia associated with parenteral opioids used for postoperative pain relief