A Novel Technique of Paravertebral Thoracic and Preperitoneal Analgesia Enhances Early Recovery After Oesophagectomy

Pain management after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

Adequate pain control after open esophagectomy is associated with reduced complications, earlier recovery and higher patient satisfaction. While further developing surgical procedures like robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) it is relevant to adapt postoperative pain management. The primary question of this observational survey was whether one of the two standard treatments, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), is superior for pain control after RAMIE as the optimal pain management for these patients still remains unclear. Use of additional analgesics, changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), postoperative complications and duration of intensive care and hospital stay were also analyzed.

Methods

This prospective observational pilot study analyzed 50 patients undergoing RAMIE (postoperative PCA with piritramide or TEA using bupivacaine; each n = 25). Patient reported pain using the numeric rating scale score and differences in FEV1 using a micro spirometer were measured at postoperative day 1, 3 and 7. Additional data of secondary endpoints were collected from patient charts.

Results

Key demographics, comorbidity, clinical and operative variables were equivalently distributed. Patients receiving TEA had lower pain scores and a longer-lasting pain relief. Moreover, TEA was an independent predictive variable for reduced length of hospital stay (HR -3.560 (95% CI: -6.838 to -0.282), p = 0.034).

Conclusions

Although RAMIE leads to reduced surgical trauma, a less invasive pain therapy with PCA appears to be inferior compared to TEA in case of sufficient postoperative analgesia and length of hospital stay. According to the results of this observational pilot study analgesia with TEA provided better and longer-lasting pain relief compared to PCA. Further randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate the optimal postoperative analgesic treatment for RAMIE.

A comparative study on analgesic and non-analgesic outcomes of inter pleural analgesia compared to thoracic epidural analgesia in open pancreatico-duodenectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is an established analgesic method in open Kausch-Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (KWPD). Although, it can cause hemodynamic instability and neurological complications. Inter pleural analgesia (IPA) is an alternative option. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of IPA versus TEA after KWPD.

Methods

We retrospectively studied the efficacy of IPA against TEA in patients, operated by a single surgeon. The primary outcome was the analgesic efficacy and secondary outcomes were analgesia-related complications, inotrope use, and duration.

Results

Forty patients (TEA, 22; IPA, 18) were included. Both groups were well matched for patient characteristics, type, and duration of surgery. TEA was associated with higher analgesia-related complications (n = 8, 36.4% vs. n = 1, 5.6%; p = 0.027). TEA complications included analgesia not working (n = 4), leakage (n = 2), refractory hemodynamic instability (n = 1), and lower limb anaesthesia (n = 1). One patient in the IPA group encountered leakage. TEA was associated with longer inotrope requirement (35 vs. 18 hours; p = 0.047). There was no significant difference in intensive care unit (ITU) admission rate (81.8% vs. 77.8%; p > 0.999), median ITU stay (3 vs. 2 days, p = 0.385), or hospital stay (11 days in both groups).

Conclusions

In open KWPD, IPA is not inferior to TEA in its efficacy of pain control. IPA was associated with less analgesia-related complications and shorter inotrope requirements. However, this was a small retrospective study. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to study the effectiveness of IPA.

Comparison of multimodal analgesia with thoracic epidural after transthoracic oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has been regarded as the standard of care after oesophagectomy for pain control, but has several side-effects. Multimodal (intrathecal diamorphine, paravertebral and rectus sheath catheters) analgesia (MA) may facilitate postoperative mobilization by reducing hypotensive episodes and the need for vasopressors, but uncertainty exists about whether it provides comparable analgesia. This study aimed to determine whether MA provides comparable analgesia to TEA following transthoracic oesophagectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer between January 2015 and December 2018 were grouped according to postoperative analgesia regimen. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for treatment selection bias. Pain scores at rest and on movement, graded from 0 to 10, were used. The incidence of hypotensive episodes and the requirement for vasopressors were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 293 patients; 142 (48.5 per cent) received TEA and 151 (51.5 per cent) MA. After PSM, 100 patients remained in each group. Mean pain scores were significantly higher at rest in the MA group (day 1: 1.5 versus 0.8 in the TEA group, P = 0.017; day 2: 1.7 versus 0.9 respectively, P = 0.014; day 3: 1.2 versus 0.6, P = 0.047). Fewer patients receiving MA had a hypotensive episode (25 per cent versus 45 per cent in the TEA group; P = 0.003) and fewer required vasopressors (36 versus 53 per cent respectively; P = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate (71.0 versus 61.0 per cent; P = 0.136).

CONCLUSION

MA is less effective than TEA at controlling pain, but this difference may not be clinically significant. However, fewer patients experienced hypotension or required vasopressor support with MA; this may be beneficial within an enhanced recovery programme.

Postoperative intensive care unit stay after minimally invasive esophagectomy shows large hospital variation. Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

INTRODUCTION

The value of routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been questioned. This study aimed to investigate Dutch hospital variation regarding length of direct postoperative ICU stay, and the impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) undergoing curative MIE were included. Length of direct postoperative ICU stay was dichotomized around the national median into short ICU stay ( ≤ 1 day) and long ICU stay ( > 1 day). A case-mix corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated hospital variation. The impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2019, 2110 patients from 16 hospitals were included. Median length of postoperative ICU stay was 1 day [hospital variation: 0-4]. The percentage of short ICU stay ranged from 0 to 91% among hospitals. Corrected for case-mix, 7 hospitals had statistically significantly higher short ICU stay rates and 6 hospitals had lower rates. ICU readmission, in-hospital/30-day mortality, failure to rescue, postoperative pneumonia, cardiac complications and anastomotic leakage were not associated with hospital variation in length of ICU stay. Total length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in hospitals with relatively short ICU stay.

CONCLUSION

This study showed significant hospital variation in postoperative length of ICU stay after MIE. Short ICU stay was associated with shorter overall hospital admission and did not negatively impact short-term surgical outcomes. More selected use of ICU resources could result in a national significant cost reduction.

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 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.

Reducing pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for cancer

The cornerstone of curative care for esophageal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy with a radical lymphadenectomy. An esophagectomy is a major and complex surgical procedure and is often followed by postoperative morbidity, especially pulmonary complications. These complications may lead to an increase in hospital stay, intensive care unit admission rate and mortality. Therefore, perioperative strategies to reduce these complications have been investigated and implemented in clinical practice. In this review we highlight the influence of minimally invasive surgery, postoperative pain management, early identification of complications and the usage of uniform definitions on (pulmonary) complications after esophagectomy. Finally, we will discuss some future perspectives.