Comparison of epidural and patient-controlled intravenous morphine following joint replacement surgery

Assessment of pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting and their association in the early postoperative period: an observational study from Palestine

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postoperative pain (POP) are most commonly experienced in the early hours after surgery. Many studies have reported high rates of PONV and POP, and have identified factors that could predict the development of these complications. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between PONV and POP, and to identify some factors associated with these symptoms.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicentre, observational study performed at An-Najah National University Hospital and Rafidia Governmental Hospital, the major surgical hospitals in northern Palestine, from October 2019 to February 2020. A data collection form, adapted from multiple previous studies, was used to evaluate factors associated with PONV and POP in patients undergoing elective surgery. Patients were interviewed during the first 24 h following surgery. Multiple binary logistic regression was applied to determine factors that were significantly associated with the occurrence of PONV.

RESULTS

Of the 211 patients included, nausea occurred in 43.1%, vomiting in 17.5%, and PONV in 45.5%. Multiple binary logistic regression analysis, using PONV as a dependent variable, showed that only patients with a history of PONV [odds ratio (OR) = 2.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-5.01; p = 0.041] and POP (OR = 2.41; 95% CI = 1.17-4.97; p = 0.018) were significantly associated with the occurrence of PONV. Most participants (74.4%) reported experiencing pain at some point during the first 24 h following surgery. Additionally, the type and duration of surgery were significantly associated with POP (p-values were 0.002 and 0.006, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

PONV and POP are common complications in our surgical patients. Factors associated with PONV include a prior history of PONV and POP. Patients at risk should be identified, the proper formulation of PONV protocols should be considered, and appropriate management plans should be implemented to improve patients' outcomes.

Regional anesthesia or patient-controlled analgesia and compartment syndrome in orthopedic surgical procedures: a systematic review

A systematic review of the literature on the use of regional anesthesia (RA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was conducted in patients who require orthopedic extremity procedures to determine whether either analgesic technique contributes to a delayed diagnosis of compartment syndrome (CS). A total of 34 relevant articles (28 case reports and six research articles) were identified. Of all case report articles published after 2009, the majority (75%) concluded that RA does not put the patient at an increased risk of a delayed diagnosis of CS. Of these, only two relevant prospective research studies focusing on RA or PCA and their relationship to CS were identified. Neither study resulted in any cases of CS. However, both had relatively small sample sizes. Given the lack of evidence identified in this systematic review, prospective studies or large-scale retrospective data reviews are needed to more strongly advocate the use of one modality of analgesia over the other in this patient population.

Neuraxial blockade for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Various beneficial effects derived from neuraxial blocks have been reported. However, it is unclear whether these effects have an influence on perioperative mortality and major pulmonary/cardiovascular complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to summarize Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the effects of neuraxial blockade on perioperative rates of death, chest infection and myocardial infarction by integrating the evidence from all such reviews that have compared neuraxial blockade with or without general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for different types of surgery in various populations. Our secondary objective was to summarize the evidence on adverse effects (an adverse event for which a causal relation between the intervention and the event is at least a reasonable possibility) of neuraxial blockade. Within the reviews, studies were selected using the same criteria.

METHODS

A search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on July 13, 2012. We have (1) included all Cochrane systematic reviews that examined participants of any age undergoing any type of surgical (open or endoscopic) procedure, (2) compared neuraxial blockade versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia or neuraxial blockade plus general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia and (3) included death, chest infection, myocardial infarction and/or serious adverse events as outcomes. Neuraxial blockade could consist of epidural, caudal, spinal or combined spinal-epidural techniques administered as a bolus or by continuous infusion. Studies included in these reviews were selected on the basis of the same criteria. Reviews and studies were selected independently by two review authors, who independently performed data extraction when data differed from one of the selected reviews. Data were analysed by using Review Manager Version 5.1 and Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.2.044.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews were selected for this overview. Their scores on the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire varied from four to six of a maximal possible score of seven. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial blockade reduced the zero to 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.94; I(2) = 0%) based on 20 studies that included 3006 participants. Neuraxial blockade also decreased the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; I(2) = 0%) based on five studies that included 400 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between the two techniques (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.37; I(2) = 0%) based on six studies with 849 participants. Compared with general anaesthesia alone, the addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia did not affect the zero to 30-day mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.51; I(2) = 0%) based on 18 studies with 3228 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between combined neuraxial blockade-general anaesthesia and general anaesthesia alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; I(2) = 0%) based on eight studies that included 1580 participants. The addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia reduced the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98; I(2) = 9%) after adjustment for publication bias and based on nine studies that included 2433 participants. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate for all six comparisons.No serious adverse events (seizure or cardiac arrest related to local anaesthetic toxicity, prolonged central or peripheral neurological injury lasting longer than one month or infection secondary to neuraxial blockade) were reported. The quality of the reporting score of complications related to neuraxial blocks was nine (four to 12 (median range)) of a possible maximum score of 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with general anaesthesia, a central neuraxial block may reduce the zero to 30-day mortality for patients undergoing surgery with intermediate to high cardiac risk (level of evidence, moderate). Further research is required.

Polymorphism of μ-Opioid Receptor Gene (OPRM1:c.118A>G) Might Not Protect against or Enhance Morphine-Induced Nausea or Vomiting

A cohort, double blind, and randomized study was conducted to investigate the effect of a single nucleotide polymorphism of the μ-opioid receptor at nucleotide position 118 (OPRM1:c.118A>G) on the association with the most common side effects (nausea or vomiting) induced by intravenous patient control analgesia (IVPCA) with morphine, including incidence and severity analysis. A total of 129 Taiwanese women undergoing gynecology surgery received IVPCA with pure morphine for postoperative pain relief. Blood samples were collected and sequenced with high resolution melting analysis to detect three different genotypes of OPRM1 (AA, AG, and GG). All candidates 24 h postoperatively will be interviewed to record the clinical phenotype with subjective complaints and objective observations. The genotyping after laboratory analysis showed that 56 women (43.4%) were AA, 57 (44.2%) were AG, and 16 (12.4%) were GG. The distribution of genotype did not violate Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test. There was no significant difference neither between the severity and incidence of IVPCA morphine-induced side effects and genotype nor between the association between morphine consumption versus genotype. However, there was significant difference of the relation between morphine consumption and the severity and incidence of IVPCA morphine-induced nausea and vomiting. The genetic analysis for the severity and incidence of IVPCA morphine-induced nausea or vomiting showed no association between phenotype and genotype. It might imply that OPRM1:c.118A>G does not protect against IVPCA morphine-induced nausea or vomiting.

Pain management in total joint arthroplasty: a historical review

Patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty experience substantial and sustained postoperative pain. Inadequate analgesia may impede recovery and delay hospital discharge. Traditionally, postoperative analgesia following arthroplasty was provided by intravenous patient-controlled analgesia or epidural analgesia, but each technique has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Recently, peripheral nerve blockade of the lumbosacral plexus has emerged as an alternative analgesic approach. An increasing number of studies have reported multimodal analgesia featuring unilateral peripheral block provide pain relief and functional outcomes similar to that of continuous epidural and superior to systemic analgesia but with fewer side effects. This review discusses the indications, benefits, and side effects associated with conventional and innovative analgesic approaches to facilitate rehabilitation and improve outcome following total joint arthroplasty.

The efficacy of periarticular multimodal drug infiltration in total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia is a widely used and effective method of controlling pain after THA. This method is associated with substantial undesirable side effects. Local infiltration has been introduced in an attempt to reduce opioid requirements postoperatively, but its ability to reduce pain without complications is still questioned.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We evaluated patient-controlled analgesia use, pain and satisfaction scores, complication rates, and ropivacaine levels associated with the use of periarticular multimodal drug infiltration in THA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomized 64 patients undergoing THA to receive a periarticular intraoperative multimodal drug injection or to receive no injection. All patients received patient-controlled analgesia for 24 hours after surgery. The final assessment was at 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Patients receiving the periarticular injection used less patient-controlled analgesia 6 hours postoperatively. The 24-hour patient-controlled analgesia requirement postsurgery also was less. The visual analog scale score for pain on activity in the postanesthetic care unit was less for patients who received an injection. The visual analog scale satisfaction score was similar in the two groups throughout the followup period. Recorded unbound ropivacaine levels were 2.5 times lower than toxic levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Periarticular intraoperative injection with multimodal drugs can reduce postoperative patient-controlled analgesia requirements and pain on activity in patients undergoing THA with no apparent increase in risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study. See the guidelines online for a complete description of level of evidence.

Lessons learned with extended-release epidural morphine after total hip arthroplasty

An extended-release epidural morphine (EREM) has been introduced to improve postoperative pain management. Studies have shown the effectiveness of this agent in providing better pain control and patient satisfaction for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. We evaluated postoperative pain relief by comparing average daily pain scores and opioid use with those of the control group. Safety was measured by comparing the occurrence of postoperative complications, nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and respiratory depression between the two groups. Between February 2006 and March 2008, we selected 203 patients to receive EREM for THA. These patients were matched in a 2:1 ratio with patients undergoing THA and receiving spinal anesthesia. We retrospectively reviewed all major and minor postoperative complications from a prospective database. Patients receiving EREM had lower pain scores than patients not receiving EREM on Postoperative Day 1 (POD 1) but not POD 2, or POD 3. Patients receiving EREM experienced a slightly higher incidence of pulmonary embolism and supraventricular tachycardia. Patients receiving EREM also experienced more nausea and vomiting and pruritus. We found EREM provided better pain relief on POD 1 at the expense of a slightly higher incidence of side effects compared with spinal anesthesia alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does regional anesthesia improve outcome after total knee arthroplasty?

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is amenable to various regional anesthesia techniques that may improve patient outcome. We sought to answer whether regional anesthesia decreased mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, blood loss, duration of surgery, pain, opioid-related adverse effects, cognitive defects, and length of stay. We also questioned whether regional anesthesia improved rehabilitation. To do so, we performed a systematic review of the contemporary literature comparing general anesthesia and/or systemic analgesia with regional anesthesia and/or regional analgesia for TKA. To reflect contemporary surgical and anesthetic practice, only randomized, controlled trials from 1990 onward were included. We identified 28 studies involving 1538 patients. There was insufficient evidence from randomized, controlled trials alone to conclude if anesthetic technique influenced mortality, cardiovascular morbidity other than postoperative hypotension, or the incidence of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism when using thromboprophylaxis. Our review suggests there was no difference in perioperative blood loss or duration of surgery in patients who received general anesthesia versus regional anesthesia. Compared with general anesthesia and/or systemic analgesia, regional anesthesia and/or analgesia reduced postoperative pain, morphine consumption, and opioid-related adverse effects. Length of stay may be reduced and rehabilitation facilitated for patients undergoing regional anesthesia and analgesia for TKA.

Does regional anaesthesia improve outcome after total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is amenable to a variety of regional anaesthesia (RA) techniques that may improve patient outcome. We sought to answer whether RA decreased mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), blood loss, duration of surgery, pain, opioid-related adverse effects, cognitive defects, and length of stay. We also questioned whether RA improved rehabilitation. To do so, we performed a systematic review of the contemporary literature to compare general anaesthesia (GA) and RA and also systemic and regional analgesia for THA. To reflect contemporary surgical and anaesthetic practice, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1990 onward were included. We identified 18 studies involving 1239 patients. Only two of the 18 trials were of Level I quality. There is insufficient evidence from RCTs alone to conclude if anaesthetic technique influenced mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, or the incidence of DVT and PE when using thromboprophylaxis. Blood loss may be reduced in patients receiving RA rather than GA for THA. Our review suggests that there is no difference in duration of surgery in patients who receive GA or RA. Compared with systemic analgesia, regional analgesia can reduce postoperative pain, morphine consumption, and nausea and vomiting. Length of stay is not reduced and rehabilitation does not appear to be facilitated by RA or analgesia for THA.

A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for postoperative analgesia following total knee arthroplasty

The PROSPECT Working Group, a collaboration of anaesthetists and surgeons, conducts systematic reviews of postoperative pain management for different surgical procedures (http://www.postoppain.org). Evidence-based consensus recommendations for the effective management of postoperative pain are then developed from these systematic reviews, incorporating clinical practice observations, and transferable evidence from other relevant procedures. We present the results of a systematic review of pain and other outcomes following analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The evidence from this review supports the use of general anaesthesia combined with a femoral nerve block for surgery and postoperative analgesia, or alternatively spinal anaesthesia with local anaesthetic plus spinal morphine. The primary technique, together with cooling and compression techniques, should be supplemented with paracetamol and conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or COX-2-selective inhibitors, plus intravenous strong opioids (high-intensity pain) or weak opioids (moderate- to low-intensity pain).

Single-Dose Extended-Release Epidural Morphine for Pain Following Hip Arthroplasty

This open-label, serial-cohort pilot study evaluated DepoDur, a new, single-dose, extended-release epidural morphine (EREM) for pain control after hip arthroplasty. Single-dose EREM (10-30 mg) or a single dose of standard morphine sulfate (MS) (5 mg) was administered before surgery and spinal anesthesia. Among the 39 patients enrolled, total 48-hour supplemental fentanyl use was lower (P = 0.011 overall treatment) and median time to first postoperative fentanyl use was three- to six-fold longer (P < 0.001 overall treatment), among 10-, 20-, and 30-mg single-dose EREM patients versus MS patients. EREM patients reported higher levels of satisfaction with pain intensity scores comparable to MS patients. Safety results were similar between groups. Single-dose EREM was generally safe and effective for treating postoperative pain and reduced the need for supplemental analgesia.

Analgesia for total hip and knee arthroplasty: a multimodal pathway featuring peripheral nerve block

Patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty experience substantial and sustained postoperative pain. Inadequate analgesia may impede physical therapy and rehabilitative efforts and delay hospital dismissal. Traditionally, postoperative analgesia after total joint replacement was provided by either intravenous patient-controlled analgesia or epidural analgesia. Each, however, had disadvantages as well as advantages. Peripheral nerve blockade of the lumbosacral plexus has emerged as an alternative analgesic approach. In several studies, unilateral peripheral block provided a quality of analgesia and functional outcomes similar to those of continuous epidural analgesia and superior to those of systemic analgesia, but with fewer side effects because of their opioid-sparing properties. Peripheral nerve block techniques may be the optimal analgesic method following total joint arthroplasty.

Evaluation of a single-dose, extended-release epidural morphine formulation for pain after knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

DepoDur is a single-dose, extended-release epidural morphine formulation designed to provide forty-eight hours of pain relief. The drug offers potential advantages over continuous epidural infusions, particularly in patients being treated with anticoagulation therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-dose epidural DepoDur for pain control following knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients were randomized to receive a single-dose of DepoDur (20 or 30 mg) or a sham epidural injection thirty minutes before administration of general or regional anesthesia for knee arthroplasty. At their first request for postoperative analgesia, patients who had received DepoDur were given an intravenous bolus of hydromorphone followed by placebo patient-controlled analgesia. Patients who had received the sham epidural were given an intravenous bolus of morphine followed by patient-controlled analgesia with morphine. Patient ratings of pain intensity at rest and with activity, their rating of overall pain control, and postoperative opioid use were recorded. The ability to tolerate physical therapy, the range of motion of the knee, and the need for physical support were assessed as well. Adverse events and vital signs were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 168 patients randomized to receive the 20-mg injection of DepoDur, the 30-mg injection of DepoDur, or the sham epidural injection, fifty-one, fifty-eight, and fifty-five patients, respectively, were included in the efficacy analysis. Compared with the patients treated with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, the patients treated with DepoDur had significantly reduced mean pain-intensity-recall scores during the four to eight, four to twelve, four to twenty-four, and four to thirty-hour postdose intervals (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). The patients treated with DepoDur used approximately a threefold lower amount of postoperative opioids in total, with a significant percentage requiring no supplemental opioids. Adverse events common to all groups were nausea (78%), pyrexia (46%), vomiting (43%), pruritus (43%), and hypotension (36%). Respiratory depression was the most common serious adverse event, with serious respiratory depression observed in four DepoDur-treated patients, who were more than sixty-five years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate patient selection and monitoring, perioperative single-dose epidural DepoDur was a safe and effective analgesic alternative to postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia following knee arthroplasty, with younger patients benefiting from the 20-mg dose. Additional studies of 10 to 15-mg doses for older patients are warranted.

Epidural analgesia for pain relief following hip or knee replacement

BACKGROUND

Hip and knee replacement are common operative procedures to improve mobility and quality of life. Adequate pain relief is essential in the postoperative period to enable ambulation and initiation of physiotherapy. Lumbar epidural analgesia is a common modality for pain relief following these procedures. However, there is no systematic review of the evidence comparing the efficacy of epidural analgesia with other postoperative analgesic modalities. As the use of epidural analgesia may delay the initiation of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis due to the potential risk of epidural hematoma, a synthesis of the evidence is necessary to determine whether or not alternative analgesic modalities are worse, equivalent, or better than epidural analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to answer the question: "Is lumbar epidural analgesia more efficacious than systemic analgesia or long-acting spinal analgesia for postoperative pain relief in patients after elective hip or knee replacement?"

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched from their inception to June 2001. Reference lists of review articles and included studies were also reviewed for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

A study was included if it was a randomized or pseudo randomized controlled clinical trial of patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, in which postoperative lumbar epidural analgesia was compared to other methods for pain relief. Study selection was performed unblinded in duplicate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected unblinded in duplicate. Information on the patients, methods, interventions, outcomes (pain relief, postoperative function, length of stay) and adverse events were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed using a validated 5-point scale. Meta-analysis was conducted when sufficient data existed from two or more studies. Heterogeneity testing was performed using the Breslow-Day method. The fixed effects model was used unless heterogeneity was present, in which case, a random effects model was used. Continuous data were summarized as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous data were summarized as odds ratios (OR) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) or numbers-needed-to-harm (NNH) with their respective 95% CI. Graphical representation of continuous data used the MetaView program.

MAIN RESULTS

In the first four to six hours after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia had less pain at rest, based on visual analog scores (VAS), than patients receiving systemic analgesia (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.24 to -0.31). This effect was not statistically significant by 18 to 24 hours (SMD -0.29; 95% CI -0.73 to 0.16). These observations were based only on studies evaluating populations consisting of total knee replacements alone or mixed populations of total hip or total knee replacements. For pain relief with movement after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores than patients receiving systemic analgesia in all four studies examining these outcomes. The choice of epidural agents may also influence the extent to which epidural analgesia differs from systemic analgesia. The differences between epidural analgesia and systemic analgesia in the frequency of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.49) or depression of breathing (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.54) were not statistically significant. Sedation occurred less frequently with epidural analgesia (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97) with a number-needed-to-harm of 7.7 (95% CI 3.5 to 42.0) patients for the systemic analgesia group. Retention of urine (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.51; NNH 4.5, 95% CI 2.3 to 12.2), itching (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.76 to 12.78; NNH 6.8, 95% CI 4.4 to 15.8), and low blood pressure (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.72; NNH 6.7, 95% CI 3.5 to 103) were more frequent with epidural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the edural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the effect of epidural analgesia on serious postoperative complications, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia may be useful for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb joint replacements. However, the benefits may be limited to the early (four to six hours) postoperative period. An epidural infusion of local anesthetic or local anesthetic-narcotic mixture may be better than epidural narcotic alone. The magnitude of pain relief must be weighed against the frequency of adverse events. The current evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on the frequency of rare complications from epidural analgesia, postoperative morbidity or mortality, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay.

Lumbar paravertebral nerve block in the management of pain after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled clinical trial

The accepted mode of pain management after total hip or knee arthroplasty is patient-controlled analgesia. This study evaluates the efficacy of lumbar paravertebral nerve block in diminishing postoperative pain when used as an adjunct to patient-controlled analgesia. A total of 115 arthroplasty patients received postoperatively a lumbar paravertebral nerve block (block, n = 57) or a sham procedure (control, n = 58). The block group required approximately 10 mg less morphine for pain control than the control group during the first 4 hours postoperatively (P<.001). There were no significant differences in morphine use between the groups 4 to 24 hours postoperatively. Visual analog scale pain score measurements at 4, 8, and 24 hours did not differ significantly between the groups. Paravertebral nerve block of the lumbar plexus is an invasive procedure with some risk. Considering the added risk and minimal benefits, routine use of this procedure is not supported.

Intrathecal morphine (ITM) for postoperative pain control in children: a comparison with nalbuphine patient controlled analgesia (PCA)

This is a retrospective study covering the ten-year period 1984-1993. Single shot spinal morphine (ITM) is compared with PCA nalbuphine for postoperative pain relief in children having abdominal or thoracic procedures. The records of 52 patients meeting selection criteria were examined. Nursing and physician notations were reviewed for hourly pain assessments, evidence of associated complications, respiratory depression, nausea and or vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention. ITM provided significantly better pain relief (2.2 h in pain) during the first 24 h postoperatively than PCA nalbuphine (9.2 h in pain). With the exception of urinary retention which was significantly more frequent following ITM (58.6%) compared to PCA nalbuphine (8.7%), narcotic related complications were not different between the two groups. No difference in duration of hospital stay or ICU stay could be demonstrated. We conclude that ITM provides better pain relief, without more serious complications, than PCA nalbuphine. We recommend it as a safe, effective technique to treat postoperative pain in children following thoracic or upper abdominal procedures.

Extended femoral nerve sheath block after total hip arthroplasty: continuous versus patient-controlled techniques

We assessed the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) techniques for extended femoral nerve sheath block after total hip arthroplasty. Forty-five patients were divided into three groups of 15. Over 48 h, all patients received 0.125% bupivacaine with clonidine 1 microg/mL and sufentanil 0.1 microg/mL via a femoral nerve sheath catheter as a continuous infusion at 10 mL/h in Group 1, as PCA boluses only of 10 mL/h in Group 2, or as PCA boluses of 5 mL per 30 min in Group 3. Pain scores, sensory block, supplemental analgesia, bupivacaine consumption, side effects, and satisfaction scores were recorded. Pain scores at rest and supplemental analgesia were comparable in the three groups. At 48 h, pain relief on movement was significantly better in Group 3 than in Group 1 (P = 0.01). Bupivacaine consumption was significantly less in Groups 2 and 3 than in Group 1 (P < 0.001). Side effects were comparable in the three groups. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in Group 3 than in the other groups (P < 0.01). We conclude that, to maintain extended femoral nerve sheath block after total hip arthroplasty, PCA techniques reduce the local anesthetic consumption without compromise in patient satisfaction or visual analog scale scores. Of the two PCA techniques tested, PCA boluses (5 mL per 30 min) of 0.125% bupivacaine with clonidine 1 microg/mL and sufentanil 0.1 microg/mL are associated with the smallest local anesthetic consumption and the most patient satisfaction.

Postoperative analgesia after total hip arthroplasty: i.v. PCA with morphine, patient-controlled epidural analgesia, or continuous "3-in-1" block?: a prospective evaluation by our acute pain service in more than 1,300 patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the most appropriate postoperative analgesic technique after hip surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, nonrandomized study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

1,338 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients scheduled for elective unilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA).

INTERVENTIONS

During the first 48 postoperative hours, pain relief was provided by intravenous (i.v.) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine (Group 1), continuous "3-in-1" block (Group 2), or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) (Group 3).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During a 7.5-year period, pain scores, supplemental analgesia, satisfaction score, technical problems, and side effects were collected by our acute pain service. Postoperative pain relief was comparable in the three groups. More paracetamol was required in Group 2 (1.0 +/- 1.2 g/48 h) and Group 3 (0.9 +/- 1.3 g/48 h) than in Group 1 (0.5 +/- 1.1 g/48 h) (p < 0.01). However, only 8% of patients in Group 2 and 12% of patients in Group 3 needed an opioid. A higher incidence of technical problems was noted in Group 3 (23.4%) than in Group 1 (2.3%) or Group 2 (5.5%) (p < 0.001). A lower incidence of side effects was observed in Group 2 (23.5%) when compared with Group 1 (58.8%) and Group 3 (71.9%) (p < 0.001). Satisfaction score was significantly higher in Group 2 than in the other two groups [80 +/- 16 vs. 87 +/- 14 vs. 81 +/- 14 in Groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively (p = 0.003)].

CONCLUSION

After THA, i.v. PCA with morphine, continuous "3-in-1" block, and PCEA provided comparable pain relief. Because it induces the fewest technical problems and side effects, continuous "3-in-1" block is the preferred technique.

[Postoperative locoregional analgesia in the adult: epidural and peripheral techniques. Indications, adverse effects and monitoring]

Regional analgesia is a very effective way to treat postoperative pain. Lumbar and thoracic epidural analgesia are well adapted to major abdominal and thoracic surgery. Nevertheless, respiratory side effects induced by opioids are potentially severe and an adequate monitoring is essential. In orthopaedic surgery, perineural blocks are the best technique to manage postoperative pain and perineural catheters may be used. The importance of intra-articular analgesia, simple and safe, is not fully understood. The association of a local anaesthetic inducing a minor motor block and a strong sensitive block (bupivacaine, ropivacaine), with an opioid seems to be the best pharmacologic choice regarding quality of analgesia and safety. Benefits of postoperative regional analgesia on mortality and morbidity are not demonstrated. Medical and nursing staff and specialized units should improve quality of postoperative regional analgesia as well. General guidelines for the practice of regional anaesthesia must be closely followed.

Postoperative pain control after lumbar spine fusion. Patient-controlled analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of postoperative continuous epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Controversy remains regarding the optimal strategy for postoperative pain control.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients were divided into two treatment groups. There was no difference between the groups with respect to age, levels fused, estimated blood loss, and use of spinal instrumentation. Patient-controlled analgesia or epidural analgesia was administered in a double-blind manner for a 3-day postoperative course. Each patient received both an epidural and a patient-controlled analgesia delivery system; 26 received the epidural active agent and 28 received patient-controlled analgesia. Postoperative time to liquids and solid food, ambulation, length of stay, and side effects was recorded. Pain was evaluated by a visual analog scale on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3.

RESULTS

Results showed no difference between the groups with reference to diet, ambulation, length of stay, and visual analog scale scores. Minor side effects occurred in 71% of patients in both groups. No major complications occurred. Epidural catheter dislodgment occurred in 11% of patients. The total cost for epidural analgesia was approximately $550 more than that for patient-controlled analgesia for a 3-day postoperative course.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that there is no clinical advantage of epidural opiate/local anesthetic analgesia over systemic opiate by patient-controlled analgesia for spinal fusion patients. However, possible technical limitations (namely, the low dosage of bupivacaine and placement of the catheter tip) may have prevented adequate delivery of anesthetic to the involved segments. Although the incidence of side effects is similar, cost factors and a high incidence of epidural catheter dislodgment favor use of patient-controlled analgesia.

Patient experience of pain after elective noncardiac surgery

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent and evolution of pain after common major surgical procedures and to establish correlates of three types of pain: pain at rest, pain with movement, and maximum pain over the previous 24 h. Patients completed a preoperative questionnaire to obtain data on age, gender, narcotic use, baseline level of pain, chronicity of pain, and level of anxiety. Patients were then interviewed on Postoperative Days 1, 2, and 3 to assess their pain on a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst imaginable). The mean pain score at rest was 2.6 on Postoperative Day 1 and decreased to 2.3 on Postoperative Day 3 (P = 0.06). The mean pain score with movement was 4.5 on Postoperative Day 1, which decreased to 4.2 on Postoperative Day 3 (P = 0.03). The mean maximum pain score over the previous 24 h was 6.3, which decreased to 5.6 (P = 0.0001). Preoperative narcotic use and high baseline preoperative pain, defined as a score > or = 4, were significantly (P < 0.05) associated with increased pain at rest, pain with movement, and maximum pain. Epidural analgesia was the only mode of analgesia significantly associated with both decreased postoperative pain at rest and decreased pain with movement (P < 0.05). These relatively high pain scores and minimum decreases in pain from Postoperative Days 1 to 3 emphasizes the need for more effective pain management continuing into the postoperative period to facilitate mobilization and recovery.

Intra-operative epidural morphine, fentanyl, and droperidol for control of pain after spinal surgery. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind trial

The present study was conducted to investigate the analgesic effects of intra-operatively administered epidural morphine in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar disc disease. Three treatment groups were constituted: one with 5.0 mg morphine and 2.5 mg dehydrobenzperidol (DHB) in 10 ml physiological saline, one with 5.0 mg morphine and 0.1 mg fentanyl in the same amount of saline, and one placebo group with saline only. The test solution was injected epidurally via catheter after haemostasis and before closure of the wound. Sixty eight patients were randomly assigned to each of the three groups and subjected to a double-blind evaluation. In the morphine/fentanyl and morphine/droperidol groups, significantly better analgesia was found as compared to the placebo group. No significant difference was found between the morphine/fentanyl and morphine/droperidol groups considering side effects of therapy, as well as duration and quality of analgesia. The side effects in the treatment groups were only slight and not significantly different from the placebo group. It was shown that additional epidural fentanyl offers no significant improvement of postoperative analgesia. No significant reduction of adverse effects could be found in the morphine/droperidol group compared to the morphine/fentanyl group. In conclusion, the intra-operative epidural application of morphine is a safe, effective and simple method for achieving sufficient analgesia in the first 24 hours after lumbar spinal surgery for disc disease.

Postoperative Epidural Pain Management

Postoperative pain can be effectively managed with epidurally administered opioids or local anesthetics. This article briefly reviews spinal cord anatomy. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of epidurally administered opioids and local anesthetics are outlined. The pharmacist's participation in a pharmaceutical care plan for the acute postoperative pain patient is also discussed.