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

Regional anaesthesia for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, visceral, non-oncological surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, non-oncological visceral surgery in adults is challenging. Regional anaesthesia could be a promising component in multimodal pain management.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment. Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest/during movement after 24 h, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and the number of patients with postoperative paralytic ileus.

RESULTS

82 trials were included. Peripheral regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia may result in a slight reduction of pain intensity at rest at 24 h (mean difference (MD) - 0.72 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.91 to - 0.54; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), which was not clinically relevant. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect on pain intensity during activity at 24 h (MD -0.8 points; 95%CI - 1.17 to - 0.42; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the incidence of block-related adverse events. In contrast, neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) may reduce postoperative pain intensity at rest in a clinical relevant matter (MD - 1.19 points; 95%CI - 1.99 to - 0.39; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), but the effect is uncertain during activity (MD - 1.13 points; 95%CI - 2.31 to 0.06; I2 = 95%; very low-certainty evidence). There is uncertain evidence, that neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) increases the risk for block-related adverse events (relative risk (RR) 5.11; 95%CI 1.13 to 23.03; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms that regional anaesthesia might be an important part of multimodal postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic visceral surgery, e.g. in patients at risk for severe postoperative pain, and with large differences between surgical procedures and settings. Further research is required to evaluate the use of adjuvants and the additional benefit of regional anaesthesia in ERAS programmes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021258281.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

A prospective randomized study of multimodal analgesia combined with single injection transversus abdominis plane block versus epidural analgesia against postoperative pain after laparoscopic colon cancer surgery

PURPOSE

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is a safe, effective, and promising analgesic procedure, but TAP block only cannot overcome postoperative pain. We conducted a prospective randomized study to evaluate postoperative pain control using multimodal analgesia (MA) combined with a single injection TAP block compared with epidural analgesia (EA) after laparoscopic colon cancer surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic colon cancer surgery were enrolled in this study and randomized into EA and MA groups. The primary endpoint was the frequency of additional analgesic use until postoperative day (POD) 2. The VAS score, blood pressure, time to bowel movement, time to mobilization, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (EA group, n = 33; MA group, n = 31) were analyzed. The patient characteristics did not differ markedly between the two groups. The frequency of additional analgesic use was significantly lower in the MA group than in the EA group (P < 0.001), whereas the VAS score did not differ markedly between the two groups. The postoperative blood pressure on the day of surgery was significantly lower in the MA group than in the EA group (P = 0.016), whereas urinary retention was significantly higher in the EA group than in the MA group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MA combined with a single injection TAP block after laparoscopic colon cancer surgery may be comparable to EA in terms of analgesia and superior to EA in terms of urinary retention.

Intrathecal diamorphine for perioperative analgesia during colorectal surgery: a cross-sectional survey of current UK practice

OBJECTIVES

To describe current UK clinical practice around the use of intrathecal diamorphine as analgesia for major elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

Online self-administered survey.

SETTING

Acute public hospitals in the UK (National Health Service - NHS) .

PARTICIPANTS

Consultant anaesthetists involved in colorectal surgery lists.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of intrathecal opioids used by anaesthetists for elective laparoscopic colorectal procedures; minimum, most common and maximum doses of intrathecal diamorphine used, timing of administration of intrathecal injection, and relationship between the number of patients anaesthetised for laparoscopic colorectal resections per month by each anaesthetist, and the doses of intrathecal diamorphine they administer.

RESULTS

In total, 479 responses were received. Of these, 399 (83%) use intrathecal opioid routinely: 351/399 (88%) use diamorphine, 35 (8.8%) use morphine, 8 (2%) use fentanyl, and 7 (1.3%) use other drugs. The median intrathecal diamorphine dose most commonly administered by anaesthetists was 500 µg (IQR 400-750 [(range 200-1500])). The median of the maximum dose administered by anaesthetists was 600 µg (IQR 500-1000 [(range 200-2000])). Greater intrathecal diamorphine dosing was positively associated with higher number of cases per month (rho=0.113, pp=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Intrathecal diamorphine is widely used by UK anaesthetists for patients undergoing major elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, there is little consensus regarding optimal dosing. Therefore, high-quality randomised dose-response trials are needed to investigate the relationship between doses of intrathecal diamorphine and patient outcomes.

Randomized controlled study comparing the analgesic effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia after open major surgery for pancreatobiliary cancer

BACKGROUND

This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare pain scales between intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in patients undergoing open surgical resection of major pancreatobiliary malignancies.

METHODS

One hundred ten patients were randomly assigned to the PCEA or IV-PCA group. We compared the numeric rating scale pain score during ambulation on postoperative day (PD) 2 and at rest (at 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00) from PD 1 to 7, the serum level of troponin I on PD 1, and the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the pain scores during ambulation on PD 2, at rest up to PD 7, serum troponin I level, and postoperative complication rates. The incidences of nausea (20.4% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.039) and drowsiness (20.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.001) were higher in the IV-PCA group and the rate of dysuria (0% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.004) was higher in the PCEA group.

CONCLUSION

PCEA showed no superiority over IV-PCA in terms of postoperative pain relief or morbidity after major open surgery for pancreatobiliary malignancies. The method of analgesia should be considered based the characteristics of the patient, surgeon, anesthesiologist, and institute.

Role of regional anesthesia and analgesia in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Effective analgesia is an important element of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), but the clinical impact of regional anesthesia and analgesia for colorectal surgery remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the impact of regional anesthesia following colorectal surgery in the setting of ERAS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We performed a systematic review of nine databases up to June 2020, seeking randomized controlled trials comparing regional anesthesia versus control in an ERAS pathway for colorectal surgery. We analyzed the studies with successful ERAS implementation, defined as ERAS protocols with a hospital length of stay of ≤5 days. Data were qualitatively synthesized. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

FINDINGS

Of the 29 studies reporting ERAS pathways, only 13 comprising 1170 patients were included, with modest methodological quality and poor reporting of adherence to ERAS pathways. Epidural analgesia had limited evidence of outcome benefits in open surgery, while spinal analgesia with intrathecal opioids may potentially be associated with improved outcomes with no impact on length of stay in laparoscopic surgery, though dosing must be further investigated. There was limited evidence for fascial plane blocks or other regional anesthetic techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was variable methodological quality and reporting of ERAS, we found little evidence demonstrating the clinical benefits of regional anesthetic techniques in the setting of successful ERAS implementation, and future studies must report adherence to ERAS in order for their interventions to be generalizable to modern clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020161200.

Evaluation of analgesic effects and hemodynamic responses of epidural ropivacaine in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries: Randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims:

The role of epidural analgesia in laparoscopic surgeries remains controversial. We evaluated intraoperative analgesic effects of epidural ropivacaine versus intravenous fentanyl in laparoscopic abdominal surgery and assessed postoperative analgesic requirements, hemodynamic changes, time to ambulation, and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU.

Material and Methods:

Seventy-two American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–III adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominal surgeries were randomized to either 0.5 mg/kg/h intravenous fentanyl (Group C) or 0.2% epidural ropivacaine at 5–8 mL/h (Group E) infusions intraoperatively and 0.25 m/kg/h fentanyl and 0.1% epidural ropivacaine infusions respectively postoperatively. Variations in mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 20% from baseline were points of intervention for propofol and analgesia with fentanyl or vasopressors. The number of interventions and total doses of fentanyl and vasopressors were noted. Postoperative analgesia was assessed at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h and when pain was reported with numerical rating scale and objective pain scores. Chi-square test and Student’s t-test were used for categorical and continuous variable analysis.

Results:

Intraoperatively, 14 patients versus 4 needed additional fentanyl and 26 versus 14 needed additional propofol in groups C and E respectively (P = 0.007, P = 0.004). MAP at 0, 6 and 18 h was lower in Group E. Pain scores were better in Group E at 6,18, and 24 h postoperatively. Time to ambulation was comparable but LOS ICU was prolonged in Group E (P = 0.05)

Conclusion:

Epidural ropivacaine produces superior intraoperative analgesia and improved postoperative pain scores without affecting ambulation but increases vasopressor need and LOS ICU in comparison with intravenous fentanyl in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.

Regional techniques for pain management following laparoscopic elective colonic resection: A systematic review

Introduction

Pain management is an integral part of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) following laparoscopic colonic resection. A variety of regional and neuraxial techniques were proposed, but their efficacy is still controversial. This systematic review evaluates published evidence on analgesic techniques and their impact on postoperative analgesia and recovery for laparoscopic colonic surgery patients.

Methods

We conducted bibliographic research on May 10, 2021, through PubMed, Cochrane database, and Google scholar. We retained meta-analysis and randomized clinical trials. We graded the strength of clinical data and subsequent recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

Results

Twelve studies were included. Thoracic epidural analgesia improved postoperative analgesia and bowel function following laparoscopic colectomy. However, it lengthens the hospital stay. Transversus abdominis plane block was as effective as thoracic epidural analgesia concerning pain control but with better postoperative recovery and lower length of hospital stay. Moreover, Lidocaine intravenous infusion improved postoperative pain management and recovery; Quadratus lumborum block provided similar postoperative analgesia and recovery. Finally, wound infiltration reduced postoperative pain without improving recovery of bowel function, and it could be proposed as an alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia.

Conclusions

Several analgesic techniques have been investigated. We found that abdominal wall blocks were as effective as thoracic epidural analgesia for pain management but with lower hospital stay and better recovery. We registered this review on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021279228).

•

First systematic review assessing the efficacy of analgesic techniques following laparoscopic elective colonic resection.

•

Only colonic resection was evaluated contrary to other studies, including rectal surgery.

•

High-quality studies (randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses) were assessed.

Purely ropivacaine-based TEA vs single TAP block in pain management after elective laparoscopic colon surgery within an upgraded institutional ERAS program

Background

The aim of this study was to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) with transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in post-operative pain management after laparoscopic colon surgery.

Methods

One hundred thirty-six patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection randomly received either TEA or TAP with ropivacaine only. The primary endpoint was opioid requirement up to 48 h postoperatively. Intensity of pain, time to onset of bowel function, time to mobilization, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and patients’ satisfaction with pain management were also assessed.

Results

We observed a significant decrease in opioid consumption on the day of surgery with TEA compared with TAP block (30 mg vs 14 mg, p < 0.001). On the first two postoperative days (POD), the balance shifted to opioid consumption being smaller in the TAP group: on POD 1 (15.2 mg vs 10.6 mg; p = 0.086) and on POD 2 (9.2 mg vs 4.6 mg; p = 0.021). There were no differences in postoperative nausea/vomiting or time to first postoperative bowel movement between the groups. No direct blockade-related complications were observed and the length of stay was similar between TEA and TAP groups.

Conclusion

TEA is more efficient for acute postoperative pain than TAP block on day of surgery, but not on the first two PODs. No differences in pain management-related complications were detected.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08647-z.

Epidural analgesia and mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Epidural analgesia (EA) has been the standard of care after major abdominal surgery for many years. This study aimed to correlate EA with postoperative complications, short- and long-term mortality in patients with and without EA after open surgery (OS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patient, clinical and outcome data were obtained from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and the Swedish Perioperative Registry. All adult patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer without metastases who underwent elective curative MIS or OS for colorectal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 and who had data recorded in both registries, were included in the study. Data were analyzed for OS and MIS procedures separately. A Poisson regression model was used to investigate the association between EA and the outcomes of interest.

Results

Five thousand seven hundred sixty-two patients were included in the study, 2712 in the MIS and 3050 patients in the OS group. After adjusting for patient specific and clinically relevant variables in the regression model, no statistically significant difference in risk for complications; 30-day, 90-day, and up to 3-year mortality following either MIS or OS could be detected between the EA+ and EA-cohorts.

Conclusions

In this large study cohort, EA as part of the comprehensive care provided was not associated with a reduction in postoperative complications risk or improved 30-day, 90-day, or 3-year survival after MIS or OS for colorectal cancer.

•

No reduction in postoperative complications with epidural analgesia.

•

No reduction in short-term mortality with epidural analgesia after colorectal surgery.

•

No reduction in long-term mortality with epidural analgesia in colorectal cancer.

Spinal block and delirium in oncologic patients after laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position: A randomized controlled trial

Delirium is the most common postsurgical neurological complication and has a variable incidence rate. Laparoscopic surgery, when associated with the Trendelenburg position, can cause innumerable physiological changes and increase the risk of neurocognitive changes. The association of general anesthesia with a spinal block allows the use of lower doses of anesthetic agents for anesthesia maintenance and facilitates better control over postoperative pain. Our primary outcome was to assess whether a spinal block influences the incidence of delirium in oncologic patients following laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position. Our secondary outcome was to analyze whether there were other associated factors. A total of 150 oncologic patients who underwent elective laparoscopic surgeries in the Trendelenburg position were included in this randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized into 2 groups: the general anesthesia group and the general anesthesia plus spinal block group. Patients were immediately evaluated during the postoperative period and monitored until they were discharged, to rule out the presence of delirium. Delirium occurred in 29 patients in total (22.3%) (general anesthesia group: 30.8%; general anesthesia plus spinal block: 13.8% p = 0.035). Patients who received general anesthesia had a higher risk of delirium than patients who received general anesthesia associated with a spinal block (odds ratio = 3.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.2–9.6; p = 0.020). Spinal block was associated with reduced delirium incidence in oncologic patients who underwent elective laparoscopic surgeries in the Trendelenburg position.

Comparison of the Effects of Epidural Analgesia and Patient-controlled Intravenous Analgesia on Postoperative Pain Relief and Recovery After Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

Epidural analgesia (EDA) is an imperative modality for postoperative pain relief after major open abdominal surgery. However, whether EDA has benefits in laparoscopic surgery has not been clear. In this study, the effects of EDA and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) were compared.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study that included 82 patients undergoing LDG for gastric cancer. Patients received either EDA (n=67) or PCIA (n=15) for postoperative pain relief. Postoperative outcomes and analgesia-related adverse events were compared between the two modalities.

RESULTS

EDA and PCIA patients showed no differences in the incidence of complications [9 (13%) vs. 2 (13%); P=0.99] and the length of postoperative hospital stay (9.6±4.5 d vs. 9.7±4.0 d; P=0.90), although the PCIA included poorer preoperative physical status (PS) patients. The number of additional doses of analgesics was higher in the EDA than in the PCIA (1.8±2.4 vs. 0.9±1.0; P=0.01), although postoperative pain scores were similar in the 2 groups. Though the time to first passage of flatus was shorter in the EDA (P<0.05), more EDA patients developed postoperative hypotension as an adverse event (P<0.01). The full mobilization day and the day of oral intake tolerance were not significantly different between the 2 groups after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

After LDG, EDA may not be indispensable, while PCIA may be the optimal modality for providing safe and effective postoperative analgesia and recovery.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) versus patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in laparoscopic colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A meta-analysis of RCTs was designed to provide an up-to-date comparison of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in laparoscopic colectomy.

METHODS

Our study was completed following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature screening was performed in MEDLINE and Web of Science. Fixed effects (FE) or random effects (RE) models were estimated based on the Cochran Q test result.

RESULTS

Totally, 8 studies were introduced in the present meta-analysis. Superiority of PCA in terms of length of hospital stay (LOS) (WMD 0.73, p = 0.004) and total complication rate (OR 1.57, p = 0.02) was found. TEA had a lower resting pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at Day 1 (WMD - 2.23, p = 0.005) and Day 2 (WMD - 2.17, p = 0.01). TEA group had also a systematically lower walking VAS. Moreover, first bowel opened time (first defecation) (WMD - 0.88, p < 0.00001) was higher when PCA was applied.

CONCLUSIONS

TEA was related to a lower first bowel opened time, walking, and resting pain levels at the first postoperative days. However, the overall complication rate and LOS were higher in the epidural analgesia group. Thus, for a safe conclusion to be drawn, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of a higher methodological and quality level are required.

Use of Epidural Analgesia in Sigmoidectomy: Is There Any Advantage in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery?

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus as to the effects of epidural analgesia on postoperative outcomes after laparoscopy in the context of the Enhanced Recovery Programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of epidural analgesia on postoperative outcomes after elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy.

METHODS

The use of epidural analgesia was discontinued in elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy and substituted by the perioperative administration of systemic lidocaine. Data from patients undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy between January 2014 and September 2016 was prospectively analysed. Patients with epidural analgesia were compared with patients without, in analgesics administrated postoperatively, length of stay, day of first defecation and mobilisation, and complication and reoperation rates.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients (male 85; female 75), median age 68 (30-92 years), were included. The groups consisted of 80 patients each. Mean length of stay (5.6 vs. 7.2 days, p = 0.03) and day of first mobilisation (mean 1.2 vs. 1.6 days, p = 0.004) were significantly shorter in the group without epidural analgesia. Reoperation rate (7.5 vs. 2.5%) was not statistically different. Complication rate was significantly lower (12.5 vs. 30%, p = 0.007) in the group without epidural. Day of first defecation was shorter in the epidural group (1.4 vs. 1.7 days, p = 0.04). Mean amount of analgesics administrated was not statistically different between groups, except for metamizole, that was administrated more in the group without epidural.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia did not offer benefits on postoperative analgesia or outcomes after elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy, causing longer length of stay, later mobilisation and higher complication rate.

Postoperative ileus following major colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ileus (POI) is characterized by delayed gastrointestinal recovery following surgery. Current knowledge of pathophysiology, clinical interventions and methodological challenges was reviewed to inform modern practice and future research.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed using search terms related to ileus and colorectal surgery. All RCTs involving an intervention to prevent or reduce POI published between 1990 and 2016 were identified. Grey literature, non-full-text manuscripts, and reanalyses of previous RCTs were excluded. Eligible articles were assessed using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of 5614 studies screened, 86 eligible articles describing 88 RCTs were identified. Current knowledge of pathophysiology acknowledges neurogenic, inflammatory and pharmacological mechanisms, but much of the evidence arises from animal studies. The most common interventions tested were chewing gum (11 trials) and early enteral feeding (11), which are safe but of unclear benefit for actively reducing POI. Others, including thoracic epidural analgesia (8), systemic lidocaine (8) and peripheral μ antagonists (5), show benefit but require further investigation for safety and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

POI is a common condition with no established definition, aetiology or treatment. According to current literature, minimally invasive surgery, protocol-driven recovery (including early feeding and opioid avoidance strategies) and measures to avoid major inflammatory events (such as anastomotic leak) offer the best chances of reducing POI.

A Meta-Analysis: Postoperative Pain Management in Colorectal Surgical Patients and the Effects on Length of Stay in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Setting

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) aims to minimize the length of a negative physiological response to surgical intervention. There are a number of aspects involved in ERAS protocols, one of which is postoperative pain relief. This meta-analysis investigates the current evidence for postoperative pain relief and its effect on patient pain and the length of stay after colorectal surgery.

METHOD/RESULTS

Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant studies between January 1966 and February 2016. All randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative pain management strategies in an ERAS setting with the length of stay as an outcome measure were selected. In addition to the length of stay, other outcomes analyzed were pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively, nausea, vomiting, and the time to the first bowel motion.

RESULTS

There was a decrease in vomiting in the ERAS group compared with the control groups (relative risk=0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27). Mean differences in the length of stay (P=0.879), pain visual analogue scales (P=0.120), the time to the first bowel motion in hours (P=0.371), and nausea (P=0.083) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In an ERAS setting with regard to a colorectal patient population, the choice of modality for postoperative pain relief does not impact the length of hospital stay, pain, the time to the first bowel motion, or nausea.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Epidural Compared with Conventional Analgesia after Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of thoracic epidural analgesia (EA) vs conventional IV analgesia (IA) after minimally invasive surgery is still unproven. We designed a randomized controlled trial comparing EA with IA after minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 87 patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal procedures at a single institution between 2011 and 2014 were enrolled. Eight patients were excluded and 38 were randomized to EA and 41 to IA. Pain was assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale and quality of life with the Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score daily until discharge.

RESULTS

Mean age was 57 ± 14 years, 43% of patients were female, and mean BMI was 28.6 ± 6 kg/m². The 2 groups were similar in demographic characteristics and distribution of diagnoses and procedures. Epidural analgesia had a higher incidence of hypotensive systolic blood pressure (<90 mmHg) episodes (9 vs 2; p < 0.05) and a trend toward longer Foley catheter duration (3 ± 2 days vs 2 ± 4 days; p > 0.05). Epidural and IA had equivalent mean lengths of stay (4 ± 3 days vs 4 ± 3 days), daily Visual Analogue Scale scores (2.4 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 2.0), and Overall Benefit of Analgesia Scores (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.2 ± 2.0), and similar time to start oral diet (2.8 ± 2 days vs 2.2 ± 1 days). Epidural analgesia patients used a higher total dose of narcotics (147.5 ± 192.0 mg vs 98.1 ± 112.0 mg; p > 0.05). Epidural and IV analgesia had equivalent total hospital charges ($144,991 ± $67,636 vs $141,339 ± $75,579; p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that EA has no added clinical benefit in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A trend toward higher total narcotics use and complications with EA was demonstrated.

Epidural Local Anesthetics Versus Opioid-Based Analgesic Regimens for Postoperative Gastrointestinal Paralysis, Vomiting, and Pain After Abdominal Surgery: A Cochrane Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to compare the effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anesthetics to postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, hospital length of stay, and cost after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Trials were identified by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (from 1950 to December, 2014) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of postoperative epidural local anesthetic with regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted data. We judged the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group scale.

RESULTS

Based on 22 trials including 1138 participants, an epidural containing a local anesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time required to observe the first flatus after an abdominal surgery standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used. Based on 28 trials including 1559 participants, we also found a decrease in time to first feces (stool): SMD -0.67 (95% CI, -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Based on 35 trials including 2731 participants, pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery is also reduced: SMD -0.89 (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10). Based on 22 trials including 1154 participants, we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours: risk ratio 0.84 (95% CI, 0.57-1.23); low quality of evidence. Based on 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak: risk ratio 0.74 (95% CI, 0.41-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on 30 trials including 2598 participants, epidural analgesia reduces length of hospital stay for an open surgery: SMD -0.20 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to 1 day). Data on cost were very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

An epidural containing a local anesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of the gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after an abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic does not affect the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For an open surgery, an epidural containing a local anesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

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.

Laparoscopic surgery: a narrative review of pharmacotherapy in pain management

Laparoscopic surgery is widespread, and an increasing number of surgeries are performed laparoscopically. Early pain after laparoscopy can be similar or even more severe than that after open surgery. Thus, proactive pain management should be provided. Pain after laparoscopic surgery is derived from multiple origins; therefore, a single agent is seldom sufficient. Pain is most effectively controlled by a multimodal, preventive analgesia approach, such as combining opioids with non-opioid analgesics and local anaesthetics. Wound and port site local anaesthetic injections decrease abdominal wall pain by 1-1.5 units on a 0-10 pain scale. Inflammatory pain and shoulder pain can be controlled by NSAIDs or corticosteroids. In some patient groups, adjuvant drugs, ketamine and α2-adrenergic agonists can be helpful, but evidence on gabapentinoids is conflicting. In the present review, the types of pain that need to be taken into account while planning pain management protocols and the wide range of analgesic options that have been assessed in laparoscopic surgery are critically assessed. Recommendations to the clinician will be made regarding how to manage acute pain and how to prevent persistent postoperative pain. It is important to identify patients at the highest risk for severe and prolonged post-operative pain, and to have a proactive strategy in place for these individuals.

Role of Epidural Analgesia within an ERAS Program after Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Studies

Introduction. Epidural analgesia has been a cornerstone of any ERAS program for open colorectal surgery. With the improvements in anesthetic and analgesic techniques as well as the introduction of the laparoscopy for colorectal resection, the role of epidural analgesia has been questioned. The aim of the review was to assess through a meta-analysis the impact of epidural analgesia compared to other analgesic techniques for colorectal laparoscopic surgery within an ERAS program. Methods. Literature research was performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All randomised clinical trials that reported data on hospital stay, postoperative complications, and readmissions rates within an ERAS program with and without an epidural analgesia after a colorectal laparoscopic resection were included. Results. Five randomised clinical trials were selected and a total of 168 patients submitted to epidural analgesia were compared to 163 patients treated by an alternative analgesic technique. Pooled data show a longer hospital stay in the epidural group with a mean difference of 1.07 (95% CI 0.06-2.08) without any significant differences in postoperative complications and readmissions rates. Conclusion. Epidural analgesia does not seem to offer any additional clinical benefits to patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an ERAS program.

Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, vomiting and pain after abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal paralysis, nausea and vomiting and pain are major clinical problems following abdominal surgery. Anaesthetic and analgesic techniques that reduce pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), while preventing or reducing postoperative ileus, may reduce postoperative morbidity, duration of hospitalization and hospital costs. This review was first published in 2001 and was updated by new review authors in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics versus postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of anastomotic leak, length of hospital stay and costs after abdominal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by conducting computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1950 to December 2014) and EMBASE (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. When we reran the search in February 2016, we added 16 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these studies into formal review findings during the next review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic versus regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We rated the quality of studies by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently extracted data and judged the quality of evidence according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 128 trials with 8754 participants in the review, and 94 trials with 5846 participants in the analysis. Trials included in the review were funded as follows: charity (n = 19), departmental resources (n = 8), governmental sources (n = 15) and industry (in part or in total) (n = 15). The source of funding was not specified for the other studies.Results of 22 trials including 1138 participants show that an epidural containing a local anaesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time to first flatus after an abdominal surgery (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used. A total of 28 trials including 1559 participants reported a decrease in time to first faeces (stool) (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Thirty-five trials including 2731 participants found that pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery was also reduced (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on scale from 0 to 10). From findings of 22 trials including 1154 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.23; low quality of evidence). From investigators in 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32; low quality of evidence). Researchers in 30 trials including 2598 participants noted that epidural analgesia reduced length of hospital stay for an open surgery (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to one day). Data on costs were very limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An epidural containing a local anaesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anaesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For open surgery, an epidural containing a local anaesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

Role of epidural and patient-controlled analgesia in site-specific laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background and Objectives:

Limited data are available comparing epidural and patient-controlled analgesia in site-specific colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate 2 modes of analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy (RC) and low anterior resection (LAR).

Methods:

Prospectively collected data on 433 patients undergoing laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted colon surgery at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed from March 2004 to February 2009. Patients were divided into groups undergoing RC (n = 175) and LAR (n = 258). These groups were evaluated by use of analgesia: epidural analgesia, “patient-controlled analgesia” alone, and a combination of both. Demographic and perioperative outcomes were compared.

Results:

Epidural analgesia was associated with a faster return of bowel function, by 1 day (P < .001), in patients who underwent LAR but not in the RC group. Delayed return of bowel function was associated with increased operative time in the LAR group (P = .05), patients with diabetes who underwent RC (P = .037), and patients after RC with combined analgesia (P = .011). Mean visual analogue scale pain scores were significantly lower with epidural analgesia compared with patient-controlled analgesia in both LAR and RC groups (P < .001).

Conclusion:

Epidural analgesia was associated with a faster return of bowel function in the laparoscopic LAR group but not the RC group. Epidural analgesia was superior to patient-controlled analgesia in controlling postoperative pain but was inadequate in 28% of patients and needed the addition of patient-controlled analgesia.

Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy: an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used.

RESULTS

A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374%) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03%; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1%; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3%; p = 0.942).

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway

OBJECTIVE

To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

EDA is mainstay of multimodal pain management within enhanced recovery pathways [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)]. For laparoscopic colorectal resections, the benefit of epidurals remains debated. Some consider EDA as useful, whereas others perceive epidurals as unnecessary or even deleterious.

METHODS

A total of 128 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resections were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing EDA versus PCA. Primary end point was medical recovery. Overall complications, hospital stay, perioperative vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Final analysis included 65 EDA patients and 57 PCA patients. Both groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Medical recovery required a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7.5 days) in EDA patients and 4 days (IQR, 3-6 days) in the PCA group (P = 0.082). PCA patients had significantly less overall complications [19 (33%) vs 35 (54%); P = 0.029] but a similar hospital stay [5 days (IQR, 4-8 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 4.5-12 days); P = 0.434]. Significantly more EDA patients needed vasopressor treatment perioperatively (90% vs 74%, P = 0.018), the day of surgery (27% vs 4%, P < 0.001), and on postoperative day 1 (29% vs 4%, P < 0.001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidurals seem to slow down recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections without adding obvious benefits. EDA can therefore not be recommended as part of ERAS pathways in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Total Intravenous Anesthesia Using N-Methyl-D-Aspartate (NMDA) Receptor-Sparing Drugs in a Patient with Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis

Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor encephalitis is a recently identified syndrome characterized by psychosis and dysautonomia. Treatment includes resection of the underlying tumor. While the pathologic mechanism involves disruption of NMDA function by anti-NMDA receptor autoantibodies, there are few descriptions of the perioperative management or anesthetic approach for such patients. We report a classic presentation of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis and describe the use of total IV anesthesia with NMDA receptor-sparing drugs. Modest postoperative analgesic requirements, not reported in prior cases, are also described in our report.

Recovery of gastrointestinal function with thoracic epidural vs. systemic analgesia following gastrointestinal surgery

The objective of this review was to systematically assess the effect of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) vs. systemic analgesia (SA) on the recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) function in patients following GI surgery. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients undergoing GI surgery, comparing the effect of two postoperative analgesia regimens. Patients postoperatively receiving local anesthesia-based TEA with or without opioids were compared to patients receiving opioid-based SA. The outcomes considered were times to GI function recovery, GI complications, and specific side effects. Twelve studies with 331 patients in the TEA group and 319 in the SA group were included. Compared to SA, TEA improved the GI recovery after GI procedures by shortening the time to first passage of flatus by 31.3 h, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): -33.2 to -29.4, P < 0.01; and shortening the time to first passage of stool by 24.1 h, 95% CIs: -27.2 to -20.9, P < 0.001. There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of anastomotic leakage and ileus. The occurrence of postoperative hypotension was relatively higher in the TEA group, risk ratio: 7.9, 95% CIs: 2.4 to 26.5, P = 0.001; other side effects (such as pruritus and vomiting) were similar in the two groups. There is evidence that TEA (compared to SA) improves the recovery of GI function after GI procedures without any increased risk of GI complications. To further confirm these effects, larger, better quality randomized controlled trials with standard outcome measurements are needed.

Enhancing the Enhanced Recovery Program in Colorectal Surgery - Use of Extended-Release Epidural Morphine (DepoDur®)

Purpose

DepoDur® is a single-dose extended-release morphine injection into the epidural space. It is not commonly used, but has many advantages over traditional analgesic regimens. We analyzed a number of these advantages in our case series in the context of the colorectal enhanced recovery program (ERP) and aimed to show that the ERP could be further enhanced by using DepoDur®.

Methods

We conducted a prospective audit of all patients undergoing open and laparoscopic colorectal procedures where DepoDur® was used between July 2010 and April 2012. Validated pain scores were used, and primary outcome measures were resting and dynamic pain, mobilization, and need for additional analgesia.

Results

Two hundred eighty patients were included in the case series. Good pain control was seen at 24 and 48 hours. Eighty-one percent of the patients required simple analgesia alone at 24 hours, and 62% required simple analgesia (paracetamol +/- nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) alone at 48 hours. Only a minority required additional oramorph and patient-controlled analgesia at 24 and 48 hours (19% at 24 hours and 38% at 48 hours). Seventy-nine percent of the patients were mobilized at 24 hours, and 88% of the patients were mobilized at 48 hours.

Conclusion

DepoDur® is an effective alternative to conventional pain management techniques and may have a role in further enhancing the ERP.

Impact of epidural analgesia on mortality and morbidity after surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To quantify benefit and harm of epidural analgesia, compared with systemic opioid analgesia, in adults having surgery under general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia decreases postoperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and BIOSIS till July 2012. We included randomized controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia (with local anesthetics, lasting for ≥ 24 hours postoperatively) with systemic analgesia in adults having surgery under general anesthesia, and reporting on mortality or any morbidity endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 125 trials (9044 patients, 4525 received epidural analgesia) were eligible. In 10 trials (2201 patients; 87 deaths), reporting on mortality as a primary or secondary endpoint, the risk of death was decreased with epidural analgesia (3.1% vs 4.9%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.93). Epidural analgesia significantly decreased the risk of atrial fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia, deep vein thrombosis, respiratory depression, atelectasis, pneumonia, ileus, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also improved recovery of bowel function, but significantly increased the risk of arterial hypotension, pruritus, urinary retention, and motor blockade. Technical failures occurred in 6.1% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults having surgery under general anesthesia, concomitant epidural analgesia reduces postoperative mortality and improves a multitude of cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal morbidity endpoints compared with patients receiving systemic analgesia. Because adverse effects and technical failures cannot be ruled out, individual risk-benefit analyses and professional care are recommended.

Multimodal therapy in perioperative analgesia

This article reviews the current evidence for multimodal analgesic options for common surgical procedures. As perioperative physicians, we have come a long way from using only opioids for postoperative pain to combinations of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), selective Cyclo-oxygenase (COX-2) inhibitors, local anesthetics, N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, and regional anesthetics. As discussed in this article, many of these agents have decreased narcotic requirements, improved patient satisfaction, and decreased postanesthesia care unit (PACU) times, as well as morbidity in the perioperative period.

A nationwide analysis of the use and outcomes of epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Epidural analgesia has demonstrated superiority over conventional analgesia in controlling pain following open colorectal resections. Controversy exists regarding cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002-2010) was retrospectively reviewed for elective open colorectal surgeries performed for benign and malignant conditions with or without the use of epidural analgesia. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between epidural and conventional analgesia.

RESULTS

A total 888,135 patients underwent open colorectal resections. Epidural analgesia was only used in 39,345 (4.4 %) cases. Epidurals were more likely to be used in teaching hospitals and rectal cancer cases. On multivariate analysis, in colonic cases, epidural analgesia lowered hospital charges by US$4,450 (p < 0.001) but was associated with longer length of stay by 0.16 day (p < 0.05) and a higher incidence of ileus (OR = 1.17; p < 0.01). In rectal cases, epidural analgesia was again associated with lower hospital charges by US$4,340 (p < 0.001) but had no effect on ileus and length of stay. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, anastomotic leak, urinary tract infection, and retention were unaffected by the use of epidurals.

CONCLUSION

Epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery is safe but does not add major clinical benefits over conventional analgesia. It appears however to lower hospital charges.

Negligible effect of perioperative epidural analgesia among patients undergoing elective gastric and pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding improvements in postoperative outcomes with perioperative epidural analgesia. We sought to examine the effect of perioperative epidural analgesia vs. intravenous narcotic analgesia on perioperative outcomes including pain control, morbidity, and mortality in patients undergoing gastric and pancreatic resections.

METHODS

We evaluated 169 patients from 2007 to 2011 who underwent open gastric and pancreatic resections for malignancy at a university medical center. Emergency, traumatic, pediatric, enucleations, and disseminated cancer cases were excluded. Clinicopathologic data were reviewed among epidural (E) and non-epidural (NE) patients for their association with perioperative endpoints.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients (71 %) received an epidural and 49 (29 %) did not. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in mean pain scores at each of the four days (days 0-3) among the E (3.2 ± 2.7, 3.2 ± 2.3, 2.3 ± 1.9, and 2.1 ± 1.9, respectively) and NE patients (3.7 ± 2.7, 3.4 ± 1.9, 2.9 ± 2.1, and 2.4 ± 1.9, respectively). Within each of the E and NE patient groups, there were significant differences (P < 0.0001) in mean pain scores from day 0 to day 3 (P < 0.0001). Of the E patients, 69 % also received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Ileus (13 % E vs. 8 % NE), pneumonia (12 % E vs. 8 % NE), venous thromboembolism (6 % E vs. 4 % NE), length of stay [11.0 ± 12.1 (8, 4-107) E vs. 12.2 ± 10.7 (7, 3-54) NE], overall morbidity (36 % E vs. 39 % NE), and mortality (4 % E vs. 2 % NE) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine use of epidurals in this group of patients does not appear to be superior to PCA.

Effect of epidural analgesia on bowel function in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Use of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) with local anesthetic and adjuncts, such as opioids, are cornerstones of ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) and are considered to play a key role in recovery after colorectal surgery. However, its effect on bowel function may lead to prolong hospital stay and is still a matter of debate. The purpose of this systemic review was to assess whether epidural analgesia could have a detrimental effect on bowel function in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with a subsequent effect on hospital stay duration, leading to failure of ERAS in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials for the effect of epidural analgesia on laparoscopic colorectal surgery was performed. The effect on postoperative recovery was evaluated in terms of return of bowel function as the primary outcome, whereas length of stay (LOS), pain score on visual analogue scale, operative time, and incidence of postoperative complications and side-effects of analgesia were recorded as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Six trials published between 1999 and 2011 were included in the final analysis. TEA significantly improves return of bowel function assessed by time to first bowel motion [WMD -0.62 (-1.11, -0.12) with Z = 2.43; P = 0.02, 95 % confidence interval (CI)], and pain scores [WMD -1.23 (-2.4, -0.07)] with Z = 2.07; P = 0.04, 95 % CI]. TEA did not influence duration of hospital stay [WMD -0.47 (-1.55, 0.61)] with Z = 0.85 (P = 0.39, 95 % CI). No significant increase in operative time or side effects was associated with TEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite of some beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on return of bowel function and pain in laparoscopic surgery, it does not affect LOS, which is multifactorial.

Evidence-based postoperative pain management after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on the management of pain after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHOD

Randomized studies, published in English between January 1995 and July 2011, assessing analgesic and anaesthetic interventions in adults undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and reporting pain scores, were retrieved from the Embase and MEDLINE databases. The efficacy and adverse effects of the analgesic techniques was assessed. The recommendations were based on procedure-specific evidence from a systematic review and supplementary transferable evidence from other relevant procedures.

RESULTS

Of the 170 randomized studies identified, 12 studies were included. Overall, all approaches including ketorolac, methylprednisolone, intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine, intravenous lidocaine infusion, intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia improved pain relief, reduced opioid requirements and improved bowel function. However, there were significant differences in the study designs and the variables evaluated, precluding quantitative analysis. The L'Abbé plots of the data from the epidural analgesia studies included in this review indicate that the pain scores in the nonepidural groups, although higher than those in the epidural groups, were within an acceptable level (i.e. < 4/10).

CONCLUSION

Infiltration of surgical incisions with local anaesthetic at the end of surgery, systemic steroids, conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors in combination with paracetamol with opioid used as rescue are recommended. Intravenous lidocaine infusion is recommended, but not as the first line of therapy. However, neuraxial blocks (i.e. epidural analgesia and spinal morphine) are not necessary based on high risk:benefit ratio.

Contemporary perioperative care strategies

Background

Historically, the preoperative and postoperative care of patients with gastrointestinal cancer was provided by surgeons. Contemporary perioperative care is a truly multidisciplinary endeavour with implications for cancer-specific outcomes.

Methods

A literature review was performed querying PubMed and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 1966 to 2012 on specific perioperative interventions with the potential to improve the outcomes of surgical oncology patients. Keywords used were: fast-track, enhanced recovery, accelerated rehabilitation, multimodal and perioperative care. Specific interventions included normothermia, hyperoxygenation, surgical-site infection, skin preparation, transfusion, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, laparoscopy, radiotherapy, perioperative steroids and monoclonal antibodies. Included articles had to be randomized controlled trials, prospective or nationwide series, or systematic reviews/meta-analyses, published in English, French or German.

Results

Important elements of modern perioperative care that improve recovery of patients and outcomes in surgical oncology include accelerated recovery pathways, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, hyperoxygenation, maintenance of normothermia, avoidance of blood transfusion and cautious use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, promotion of laparoscopic surgery, chlorhexidine–alcohol skin preparation and multidisciplinary meetings to determine multimodal therapy.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary management of perioperative patient care has improved outcomes.

Enhanced recovery for colorectal surgery: Practical hints, results and future challenges

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are now achieving worldwide diffusion in both university and district hospitals with special interest in colorectal surgery. The optimization of the patient’s preoperative clinical conditions, the careful intraoperative administration of fluids and drugs and the postoperative encouragement to resume the normal physiological functions as early as possible has produced results in a large amounts of studies. These approaches successfully challenged long-standing and well-established perioperative managements and finally achieved the status of gold standard treatments for the perioperative management of uncomplicated colorectal surgery. Even more important, it seems that the clinical improvement of the patient’s clinical management through ERAS protocols is now reaching his best outcomes (length of stay of 4-6 d after the operation) and therefore any further measures add little to the results already established (i.e., the adjunct of laparoscopic surgery to ERAS). Still dedicated meetings and courses around the world are exploring new aspects including the improvement the preoperative nutrition status to provide the energy necessary to face the surgical stress, the preoperative individuation of special requirements that could be properly addressed before the date of surgery and therefore would reduce the number of unnecessary days spent in hospital once fully recovered (i.e., rehabilitation, social discharges), and finally the development of an important web of out-of-hours direct access in order to individuate alarm symptoms in those patients at risk of complications that could prompt an early readmission.

Hospital discharge criteria following colorectal surgery: a systematic review

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify and synthesize the hospital discharge criteria that have been used in the colorectal surgery literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using eight bibliographic databases. Searches were limited to English language journal articles published between January 1996 and October 2009. Primary research applying hospital discharge criteria following colorectal surgery was included. Study selection was made independently by two reviewers. Discharge criteria were extracted from each included study.

RESULTS

The 156 studies identified by the search strategy described 70 different sets of criteria to indicate readiness for discharge. The majority of studies applied a combination of three or four criteria; those most frequently cited were tolerance of oral intake (80%), return of bowel function (70%), adequate pain control (44%) and adequate mobility (35%). End-points employed to determine the achievement of criteria were generally poorly defined.

CONCLUSION

A variety of hospital discharge criteria were applied in the colorectal surgery literature. Development of standardized criteria will allow more accurate comparison of results between studies assessing hospital length of stay or other discharge-related outcome measures.

Enhanced recovery for non-colorectal surgery

In recent years the advent of programs for enhanced recovery after major surgery (ERAS) has led to modifications of long-standing and well-established perioperative treatments. These programs are used to target factors that have been shown to delay postoperative recovery (pain, gut dysfunction, immobility) and combine a series of interventions to reduce perioperative stress and organ dysfunction. With due differences, the programs of enhanced recovery are generally based on the preoperative amelioration of the patient’s clinical conditions with whom they present for the operation, on the intraoperative and postoperative avoidance of medications that could slow the resumption of physiological activities, and on the promotion of positive habits in the early postoperative period. Most of the studies were conducted on elective patients undergoing colorectal procedures (either laparotomic or laparoscopic surgery). Results showed that ERAS protocols significantly improved the lung function and reduced the time to resumption of oral diet, mobilization and passage of stool, hospital stay and return to normal activities. ERAS’ acceptance is spreading quickly among major centers, as well as district hospitals. With this in mind, is there also a role for ERAS in non-colorectal operations?

Risks and benefits of thoracic epidural anaesthesia

Thoracic epidural anaesthesia (TEA) reduces cardiac and splanchnic sympathetic activity and thereby influences perioperative function of vital organ systems. A recent meta-analysis suggested that TEA decreased postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality. TEA appears to ameliorate gut injury in major surgery as long as the systemic haemodynamic effects of TEA are adequately controlled. The functional benefit in fast-track and laparoscopic surgery needs to be clarified. Better pain control with TEA is established in a wide range of surgical procedures. In a setting of advanced surgical techniques, fast-track regimens and a low overall event rate, the number needed to treat to prevent one death by TEA is high. The risk of harm by TEA is even lower, and other methods used to control perioperative pain and stress response also carry specific risks. To optimize the risk-benefit balance of TEA, safe time intervals regarding the use of concomitant anticoagulants and consideration of reduced renal function impairing their elimination must be observed. Infection is a rare complication and is associated with better prognosis. Close monitoring and a predefined algorithm for the diagnosis and treatment of spinal compression or infection are crucial to ensure patient safety with TEA. The risk-benefit balance of analgesia by TEA is favourable and should foster clinical use.

Toll-like receptors in the inflammatory response during open and laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions activate a cascade of reactions that result in an aseptic inflammatory reaction. This inflammatory response initiates the organism's innate immunity. Laparoscopic surgery reduces the trauma, and patients benefit from diminished surgical trauma and maintained immune function. Cytokine levels and C-reactive protein (CRP) are related to the magnitude of surgical trauma and surgical stress. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) 2 and 4 are the first sensor-recognition receptors of the invading pathogens for the innate immune response. This study aimed to compare the inflammatory response and then the stress response during laparoscopic and open colectomy for cancer by calculating TLR-2 and TLR-4 as the first sensor-recognition receptors together with interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP).

METHODS

A total 40 patients with colorectal cancer were randomized in two groups: group A (open colectomy, n = 20) and group B (laparoscopic colectomy, n = 20). An epidural catheter was placed in all patients 1 h preoperatively. Rupivocaine was administered perioperatively and 48 h postoperatively. Blood samples were taken for calculation of IL-6, TNF-α, hsCRP, TLR-2, and TLR-4 preoperatively and 5 min after deflation of pneumoperitoneum (group B) or 5 min after division of the colon (group A), then 6 and 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 115 for group A and 142 min for group B. The mean blood loss was respectively 240 and 105 ml (P < 0.001), and the mean hospital stay was respectively 8 and 5 days (P < 0.05). The IL-6 level was significant higher in group A than in group B at 6 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.0001), and the hsCRP level was significant higher in group A than in group B at 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.001). The TNF-α values did not differ between the two groups. The TLR-2 level was significantly higher in group A than in group B at 5 min (P = 0.013) and 24 h (P = 0.007) postoperatively. The TLR-4 level was significant higher in group A than in group B at 5 min postoperatively (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The inflammatory response and the resultant stress response are significantly less during laparoscopic colectomy than during open colectomy for colorectal cancer. This is an obvious short-term clinical benefit for the patient, providing tinder for further study to investigate the long-term results of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy for colorectal cancer.

Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Health care systems provide care to increasingly complex and elderly patients. Colorectal surgery is a prime example, with high volumes of major procedures, significant morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and unplanned readmissions. This situation is exacerbated by an exponential rise in costs that threatens the stability of health care systems. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERP) have been proposed as a means to reduce morbidity and improve effectiveness of care. We have reviewed the evidence supporting the implementation of ERP in clinical practice.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized, controlled trials comparing ERP with traditional care in colorectal surgery. Systematic reviews and papers on ERP based on data published in major surgical and anesthesiology journals were critically reviewed by international contributors, experienced in the development and implementation of ERP.

RESULTS

A random-effect Bayesian meta-analysis was performed, including 6 randomized, controlled trials totalizing 452 patients. For patients adhering to ERP, length of stay decreased by 2.5 days (95% credible interval [CrI] -3.92 to -1.11), whereas 30-day morbidity was halved (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.36-0.73) and readmission was not increased (relative risk, 0.59; 95% CrI, 0.14-1.43) when compared with patients undergoing traditional care.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to ERP achieves a reproducible improvement in the quality of care by enabling standardization of health care processes. Thus, while accelerating recovery and safely reducing hospital stay, ERPs optimize utilization of health care resources. ERPs can and should be routinely used in care after colorectal and other major gastrointestinal procedures.