Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Epidural Analgesia Versus Different Analgesic Regimes Following Oesophagogastric Resection

Impact of spinal or epidural anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in adult noncardiac surgery: a narrative review of recent evidence

Spinal and epidural anaesthesia and analgesia are important anaesthetic techniques, familiar to all anaesthetists and applied to patients undergoing a range of surgical procedures. Although the immediate effects of a well-conducted neuraxial technique on nociceptive and sympathetic pathways are readily observable in clinical practice, the impact of such techniques on patient-centred perioperative outcomes remains an area of uncertainty and active research. The aim of this review is to present a narrative synthesis of contemporary clinical science on this topic from the most recent 5-year period and summarise the foundational scholarship upon which this research was based. We searched electronic databases for primary research, secondary research, opinion pieces, and guidelines reporting the relationship between neuraxial procedures and standardised perioperative outcomes over the period 2018-2023. Returned citation lists were examined seeking additional studies to contextualise our narrative synthesis of results. Articles were retrieved encompassing the following outcome domains: patient comfort, renal, sepsis and infection, postoperative cancer, cardiovascular, and pulmonary and mortality outcomes. Convincing evidence of the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on patient comfort after major open thoracoabdominal surgery outcomes was identified. Recent evidence of benefit in the prevention of pulmonary complications and mortality was identified. Despite mechanistic plausibility and supportive observational evidence, there is less certain experimental evidence to support a role for neuraxial techniques impacting on other outcome domains. Evidence of positive impact of neuraxial techniques is best established for the domains of patient comfort, pulmonary complications, and mortality, particularly in the setting of major open thoracoabdominal surgery. Recent evidence does not strongly support a significant impact of neuraxial techniques on cancer, renal, infection, or cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery in most patient groups.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic epidural analgesia versus other analgesic techniques in patients post-oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer surgery represents a high perioperative risk of complications to patients, such as postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Postoperative analgesia may influence these risks, but the most favourable analgesic technique is debated. This review aims to provide an updated evaluation of whether thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has benefits compared to other analgesic techniques in patients undergoing oesophagectomy surgery. Our hypothesis is that TEA reduces pain scores and PPCs compared to intravenous opioid analgesia in patients post-oesophagectomy.

METHODS

Electronic databases PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomised trials of analgesic interventions in patients undergoing oesophagectomy surgery. Only trials including thoracic epidural analgesia compared with other analgesic techniques were included. The primary outcome was a composite of respiratory infection, atelectasis and respiratory failure (PPCs), with pain scores at rest and on movement as secondary outcomes. Data was pooled using random effect models and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Data from a total of 741 patients in 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from 1993 to 2023 were included. Nine trials were open surgery, and one trial was laparoscopic. Relative to intravenous opioids, TEA significantly reduced a composite of PPCs (risk ratio (RR) 3.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-7.61; n = 222; 3 RCTs) and pain scores (0-100-mm visual analogue scale or VAS) at rest at 24 h (MD 9.02; 95% CI 5.88-12.17; n = 685; 10 RCTs) and 48 h (MD 8.64; 95% CI 5.91-11.37; n = 685; 10 RCTs) and pain scores on movement at 24 h (MD 14.96; 95% CI 5.46-24.46; n = 275; 4 RCTs) and 48 h (MD 16.60; 95% CI 8.72-24.47; n = 275; 4 RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Recent trials of analgesic technique in oesophagectomy surgery are restricted by small sample size and variation of outcome measurement. Despite these limitations, current evidence indicates that thoracic epidural analgesia reduces the risk of PPCs and severe pain, compared to intravenous opioids in patients following oesophageal cancer surgery. Future research should include minimally invasive surgery, non-epidural regional techniques and record morbidity, using core outcome measures with standardised endpoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023484720).

Evaluating analgesia strategies in patients who have undergone oesophagectomy-a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Optimal pain control following esophagectomy remains a topic of contention. The aim was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the analgesia strategies post-esophagectomy. A NMA was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Shiny and R. Fourteen RCTs which included 565 patients and assessed nine analgesia techniques were included. Relative to systemic opioids, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) significantly reduced static pain scores at 24 hours post-operatively (mean difference (MD): -13.73, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): -27.01-0.45) (n = 424, 12 RCTs). Intrapleural analgesia (IPA) demonstrated the best efficacy for static (MD: -36.2, 95% CI: -61.44-10.96) (n = 569, 15 RCTs) and dynamic (MD: -42.90, 95% CI: -68.42-17.38) (n = 444, 11 RCTs) pain scores at 48 hours. TEA also significantly reduced static (MD: -13.05, 95% CI: -22.74-3.36) and dynamic (MD: -18.08, 95% CI: -31.70-4.40) pain scores at 48 hours post-operatively, as well as reducing opioid consumption at 24 hours (MD: -33.20, 95% CI: -60.57-5.83) and 48 hours (MD: -42.66, 95% CI: -59.45-25.88). Moreover, TEA significantly shortened intensive care unit (ICU) stays (MD: -5.00, 95% CI: -6.82-3.18) and time to extubation (MD: -4.40, 95% CI: -5.91-2.89) while increased post-operative forced vital capacity (MD: 9.89, 95% CI: 0.91-18.87) and forced expiratory volume (MD: 13.87, 95% CI: 0.87-26.87). TEA provides optimal pain control and improved post-operative respiratory function in patients post-esophagectomy, reducing ICU stays, one of the benchmarks of improved post-operative recovery. IPA demonstrates promising results for potential implementation in the future following esophagectomy.

Effect of single-shot intrathecal morphine versus continuous epidural analgesia on length of stay after gastrectomy for cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Single-dose intrathecal opiates (ITO) could shorten the length of hospital stay compared to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). This study aimed to compare TEA with TIO in terms of length of hospital stay, pain control, and parenteral opioid consumption in patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer.

METHODS

The patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer in 2007-2018 at the CHU de Québec-Université Laval were included. The patients were grouped as TEA and intrathecal morphine (ITM). The primary outcome was the length of hospital of stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes were numeric rating scales (NRS) for pain and parenteral opioid consumption.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients were included. There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The median LOS was shorter in the ITM group than in the TEA group (median, 7.5 vs. 10 days, P = 0.049). The opioids consumption at 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the TEA group at all time points. The NRS score for pain was lower in the TEA group than in the ITM group at all time points (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ITM analgesia undergoing gastrectomy presented shorter LOS than those with TEA. ITM had an inferior pain control that did not have a clinical impact on recovery in the cohort studied. Given the limitations of this retrospective study, further trials are warranted.

Early mobilization after esophageal cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study

A key component of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway for esophagectomy is early mobilization. Evidence on a specific protocol of early and structured mobilization is scarce, which explains variation in clinical practice. This study aims to describe and evaluate the early mobilization practice after esophagectomy for cancer in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands. This retrospective cohort study included data from a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent an esophagectomy between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2020. Early mobilization entailed increase in activity with the first target of ambulating 100 meters. Primary outcomes were the number of postoperative days (PODs) until achieving this target and reasons for not achieving this target. Secondary outcomes were the relationship between preoperative factors (e.g. sex, BMI) and achieving the target on POD1, and the relationship between achieving the target on POD1 and postoperative outcomes (i.e. length of stay, readmissions). In total, 384 patients were included. The median POD of achieving the target was 2 (IQR 1-3), with 173 (45.1%) patients achieving this on POD1. Main reason for not achieving this target was due to hemodynamic instability (22.7%). Male sex was associated with achieving the target on POD1 (OR = 1.997, 95%CI 1.172-3.403, P = 0.011); achieving this target was not associated with postoperative outcomes. Ambulation up to 100 m on POD1 is achievable in patients after esophagectomy, with higher odds for men to achieve this target. ERAS pathways for post esophagectomy care are encouraged to incorporate 100 m ambulation on POD1 in their guideline as the first postoperative target.

Current approaches to acute postoperative pain management after major abdominal surgery: a narrative review and future directions

Poorly controlled postoperative pain is associated with increased morbidity, negatively affects quality of life and functional recovery, and is a risk factor for persistent pain and longer-term opioid use. Up to 10% of opioid-naïve patients have persistent opioid use after many types of surgeries. Opioid-related side-effects and the opioid abuse epidemic emphasise the need for alternative, opioid-minimising, multimodal analgesic strategies, including neuraxial (epidural/intrathecal) techniques, truncal nerve blocks, and lidocaine infusions. The preference for minimally invasive surgical techniques has changed anaesthetic and analgesic requirements in abdominal surgery compared with open laparotomy, leading to a decline in popularity of epidural anaesthesia and an increasing interest in intrathecal morphine and truncal nerve blocks. Limited research exists on patient quality of recovery using specific analgesic techniques after intra-abdominal surgery. Poorly controlled postoperative pain after major abdominal surgery should be a research priority as it affects patient-centred short-term and long-term outcomes (including quality of life scores, return to function measurements, disability-free survival) and has broad community health and economic implications.

The impact of epidural catheter insertion level on pain control after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of epidural anesthesia on pain control after esophagectomy has been reported, the appropriate insertion level of the epidural catheter remains unclear for adequate postoperative pain control. We investigated the relationship between the epidural catheter insertion level and postoperative pain control after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospectively 63 patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between October 2014 and November 2018. The epidural catheter was inserted at the T4-T10 level before general anesthesia induction, and epidural anesthesia was started during the operation. In the analysis, the epidural catheter insertion level was divided into three groups (over T6/T7, T7/T8, and under T8/T9) and determined. Postoperative pain was evaluated a numeric rating scale (NRS) for at least 7 postoperative days, and the first NRS after extubation was used to evaluate the impact of the epidural catheter insertion level on pain control.

RESULTS

Ten patients (15.9%) failed pain control. The χ² test and a forward stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that only the epidural catheter insertion level affected pain control (P < 0.05). The T7/T8 insertion level significantly decreased postoperative pain after esophagectomy. In the subgroup analysis, epidural catheter insertion under T8/T9 significantly increased postoperative pain after esophagectomy when thoracoscopy/laparoscopy was assisted. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of postoperative complications among the epidural catheter insertion levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The T7/T8 epidural catheter insertion level contributed to postoperative pain relief and could lead to enhanced recovery after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial)

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.

METHODS

This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1-3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0-3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0-3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects.

DISCUSSION

In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019.

Epidural analgesia and avoidance of blood transfusion are associated with reduced mortality in patients with postoperative pulmonary complications following thoracotomic esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 335 patients

Background

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) represent the most frequent complications after esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to identify modifiable risk factors for PPCs and 90-days mortality related to PPCs after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients.

Methods

This is a single center retrospective cohort study of 335 patients suffering from esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy between 1996 and 2014 at a university hospital center. Statistical processing was conducted using univariate and multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis of patient-specific and procedural risk factors for PPCs and mortality.

Results

The incidence of PPCs was 52% (175/335) and the 90-days mortality rate of patients with PPCs was 8% (26/335) in this study cohort. The univariate and multivariate analysis revealed the following independent risk factors for PPCs and its associated mortality. ASA score ≥ 3 was the only independent patient-specific risk factor for the incidence of PPCs and 90-days mortality of patients with an odds ratio for PPCs being 1.7 (1.1–2.6 95% CI) and an odds ratio of 2.6 (1.1–6.2 95% CI) for 90-days mortality. The multivariate approach depicted two independent procedural risk factors including transfusion of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) odds ratio of 1.9 (1.2–3 95% CI) for PPCs and an odds ratio of 5.0 (2.0–12.6 95% CI) for 90-days mortality; absence of thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) revealed the highest odds ratio 2.0 (1.01–3.8 95% CI) for PPCs and an odds ratio of 3.9 (1.6–9.7 95% CI) for 90-days mortality.

Conclusion

In esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy via thoracotomy, epidural analgesia and the avoidance of intraoperative blood transfusion are significantly associated with a reduced 90-days mortality related to PPCs.

Epidural analgesia after minimally invasive esophagectomy: efficacy and complication profile

Adequate postoperative pain management is essential to facilitate uneventful recovery after esophagectomy. Although epidural analgesia is the gold standard, it is not satisfactory in all patients. The aim of this study is to describe the efficacy and complication profile of epidural analgesia after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). A total of 108 patients who underwent a robot-assisted (McKeown) MIE for esophageal cancer were included from a single center prospective database (2012-2015). The number of patients that could receive epidural analgesia, the sensory block range per day, the number of epidural top-ups, the need for escape pain mediation (i.e. intravenous opioids), the highest pain score per day (numeric rating scale: 0-10), and epidural-related complications were assessed until postoperative day (POD) 4. Epidural catheter placement was achieved in 101 patients (94%). A complete sensory block was found in 49% (POD1), 42% (POD 2), 20% (POD3), and 30% (POD4) of patients. An epidural top-up was performed in 26 patients (24%), which was successful in 22 patients. Escape pain medication in the form of intravenous opioids was given at least once in 49 out of 108 patients (45%) on POD 1, 2, 3, or 4. Overall median highest pain scores on the corresponding days were 2.0 (range: 0-10), 3.5 (range: 0-9), 3.0 (range: 0-8), and 4.0 (range: 0-9). Epidural related complications occurred in 20 patients (19%) and included catheter problems (n = 11), hypotension (n = 6), bradypnea (n = 2), and reversible tingling in the legs (n = 1). In conclusion, in this study epidural analgesia was insufficient and escape pain medication was necessary in nearly half of patients undergoing MIE.