Does the choice of anesthetic technique affect the recovery of bowel function after radical prostatectomy?

Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown differences in postoperative outcomes between two minimally invasive extraction methods for colorectal lesions-natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The aim of this study was to discover the major differences in NOSES and CLS to refine current practice.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for articles comparing NOSES and CLS from inception till March 2020. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Summary statistics were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (15 on malignant disease, 4 on benign disease, 2 on both) were included in this meta-analysis, totalling 2378 patients (1079 NOSE, 1299 CLS). NOSE was associated with decreased: intraoperative bleeding (WMD: - 10.652 ml; 95% CI: - 18.818 ml to - 2.482 ml; p < 0.001), pain score (WMD: - 1.520; 95% CI - 1.965 to - 1.076; p < 0.001), time to flatus (WMD: - 0.306 days; 95% CI: - 0.526 to - 0.085 days; p < 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD: - 1.048 days; 95% CI: - 1.488 to - 0.609 days; p < 0.001), and total morbidity (OR: 0.548; 95% CI: 0.387 to 0.777; p = 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed significant differences between malignant and benign lesions for intraoperative bleeding (p = 0.011) and pain score (p = 0.010). Meta-regression analyses showed an association between the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification III with pain (p = 0.03) and ASA III with time to flatus (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis and meta-regression demonstrated that NOSES had better postoperative outcomes compared to CLS. More comprehensive reviews should be conducted on the long-term outcomes specific to the extraction site to better inform clinical practice.

Exploring pathways towards improving patient experience of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): assessing patient satisfaction and attitudes

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient satisfaction and experience after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer, using a convergent mixed-method qualitative analysis approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

412 patients who underwent RARP between January 2014 and June 2016 were mailed questionnaires and invited to participate in focus groups. Qualitative data was thematically analysed using NVivo. Descriptive statistics were obtained from the questionnaire using SPSS.

RESULTS

214 patients responded (52% of sample size) of whom 97.6% were satisfied and 91.1% would likely recommend RARP. Key themes from the qualitative data highlighted the psychosocial impacts of the diagnosis and RARP process. The importance of early recovery, the benefits of pelvic floor exercises and educational resources were emphasised.

CONCLUSION

Patients were overwhelmingly satisfied with RARP, largely due to relevance and timeliness of the information and support provided both before and after surgery. With an increased understanding of the factors and outcomes that are most important to patients regarding all aspects of hospital care, we can create more targeted care pathways. Key themes will help inform the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol to further improve recovery and early return to function.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

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).

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).

DIEP Flap for Breast Reconstruction Using Epidural Anesthesia with the Patient Awake

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Many articles have been published about breast reconstruction using the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap; however, few articles have been published in plastic/reconstructive surgery journals describing the difference between anesthetic techniques and recovery in microsurgical patients.

Methods:

We analyzed 16 patients who underwent DIEP flap for breast reconstruction. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1: general anesthesia (n = 9); group 2: epidural block with the patient awake (n = 7). In group 2, the peridural block was done at 2 levels: thoracic (T2–T3) and lumbar (L2–L3).

Results:

The success rate was 100% with no partial or total loss of the flap. There was no difference between groups in regard to postoperative pain in the first 5 days (Visual Analog Scale). Analgesia used in group 1 was buprenorphine and ketorolac, and in group 2, only ketorolac without opioid derivatives. Immediate postoperative recovery was better in the peridural group than in the group administered general anesthesia (P = 0.0001).

Conclusions:

DIEP flap with peridural block and the patient awake during surgery is a feasible technique with better recovery in the immediate postoperative period, achieving good analgesia level with minimal intravenous medication.

Ropivacaine, articaine or combination of ropivacaine and articaine for epidural anesthesia in cesarean section: a randomized, prospective, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Initiation of epidural anesthesia with long-lasting local anesthetics consumes a significant amount of time, which could be problematic in busy obstetric anesthesia suites. We have hypothesized that a combination of articaine and ropivacaine provides faster onset and even an early recovery of sensory-motor block characteristics.

METHODS

Sixty term parturients scheduled to have elective cesarean section were randomly allocated into three groups to receive either 20 mL 2% articaine (Group A), 10 mL 2% articaine + 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (Group AR) or 20 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (Group R) via lumbar epidural catheter. The onset time of sensory block to T₁₀, T₆ and maximum sensory block level, time to two segments regression from maximum sensory block level, onset time and duration of motor block were all recorded. Intraoperative and postoperative additional analgesic requirements were also recorded.

RESULTS

Demographic data were similar. The onset times of sensorial block to T₁₀ and T₆ were significantly shorter in Groups A and AR in comparison with Group R (p<0.05). The onset times of motor block were similar in all groups, but a more intense motor block was observed in Group R (p<0.05). Two segments regression time and motor block durations were significantly shorter in Groups A and AR in comparison with Group R (p<0.05). Intraoperative supplementary analgesic requirements were higher in Group A than in the other two groups (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

A combination of 2% articaine and 0.75% ropivacaine for epidural anesthesia in a cesarean section should be preferred over epidural 0.75% ropivacaine alone.

[Nonanalgesic effects of thoracic epidural anesthesia]

Thoracic epidural anesthesia, which has been performed since the 1950s, has progressed from being one analgesic technique among others to its present status as the technique of choice for managing pain after major abdominal and thoracic surgery. In addition to providing effective analgesia, the epidural infusion of local anesthetic agents produces a sympathetic block that offers advantages over other types of pain control, particularly with respect to the cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal systems. Thoracic epidural anesthesia provides dynamic pain relief, allowing the patient to resume activity early. It also permits early extubation and is associated with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications, shorter duration of paralytic ileus, and a better response to the stress of anesthesia and surgery. However, meta-analyses have not yet demonstrated that postoperative outcomes are improved. This review describes the nonanalgesic effects of thoracic epidural anesthesia.

Oral oxycodone hydrochloride versus epidural anaesthesia for pain control after radical retropubic prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether combined oral intake of paracetamol (4 x 1 g) + oxycodone hydrochloride (2x10 mg) is adequate and equivalent to epidural anaesthesia (EDA) with respect to postoperative pain control and postoperative mobilization after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty consecutive patients scheduled for RRP were randomized to either: EDA with ropivacaine + paracetamol (4 x 1 g tablet) + injected or oral morphine on demand (EDA group); or infiltration of 25-40 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine into the wound + oxycodone hydrochloride (2 x 10 mg tablet) + paracetamol (4x1 g tablet) + injected or oral morphine on demand (OXY group). The groups were compared with respect to pain control determined by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS), time to free mobilization, hospital stay, complications, operation time and bleeding.

RESULTS

Both analgesic regimens provided satisfactory analgesia, i.e. VAS scores remained significantly below 4 (p<0.0001). The EDA group experienced slightly less pain than the OXY group on the operation day but this was not significant: median VAS scores of 0.7 and 1.8, respectively (p=0.27). Median VAS scores during hospital stay were 1.7 in both treatment groups. VAS scores ranged from 0.1 to 3.3 and from 0.2 to 3.5 in the EDA and OXY groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in postoperative mobilization between the groups (p=0.06). The median duration of hospital stay was 3 nights in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pain control after RRP with oral oxycodone hydrochloride, paracetamol and extra morphine on demand is preferable to EDA when pain control as well as mobilization and costs are taken into account.

A comparison of three methods of pain control for posterior spinal fusions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine alone, a single preoperative intrathecal morphine injection and PCA (IT/PCA), and epidural catheter infusion without PCA (EPI) for postoperative pain control after posterior spinal fusion (PSF) and segmental spinal instrumentation (SSI) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Postoperative pain control after PSF and SSI in AIS can be managed in different ways. EPI provides for a longer period of pain relief but is reliant on the correct placement and maintenance of the catheter in the epidural space. A single preoperative intrathecal morphine injection also provides for long acting analgesia. No direct comparison of these 3 methods of postoperative pain control has been reported.

METHODS

An IRB-approved retrospective chart review was performed at 2 institutions from 1997 to 2005. The medical record was reviewed to determine pain scores after surgery at multiple time periods. The 3 groups were compared using Student t test and chi and significance was defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in the gender, age, magnitude of curve, or number of levels fused in the IT/PCA (N = 42), PCA (N = 41), or EPI (N = 55) groups. Postoperative pain scores were lowest in the IT/PCA group in the first 8 hours (P < 0.05) but the pain scores in the EPI group were then lower through 24 hours (P < 0.05). Total morphine use (mg/kg) was lower in the IT/PCA group compared with the PCA group at 12 hours and 24 hours (P = 0.0001). Return to solid food ingestion was quickest in the EPI group (2.0 days) followed by the IT/PCA (2.6 days) and PCA alone (3.2 days) (P < 0.002). Respiratory depression and transient neurologic change occurred most frequently in the EPI group (EPI 11/55 pts vs. 1/42 IT/PCA vs. 0/41 PCA P < 0.001). Pruritus was greatest in the epidural group (11/55 P < 0.05). There were no intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential changes or permanent neurologic injury recorded in any group.

CONCLUSION

An EPI controls postoperative pain for the longest period of time and allows for a quicker return to consumption of solid foods. However, a single preoperative intrathecal morphine injection controls the pain equally for the first 24 hours with less pruritus and with less adverse events thus requiring less nursing and physician intervention after PSF and SSI in AIS. All methods were safe with no neurologic injury recorded.

Physical and emotional predictors of depression after radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy commonly results in urinary, sexual, and bowel dysfunction that bothers men and may lead to depressive symptomatology (hereafter depression) that occurs at a rate 4 times greater for men with prostate cancer than healthy counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess depressive symptoms in men shortly after radical prostatectomy and to identify associated risk factors. Seventy-two men were interviewed 6 weeks after surgery. Measured were depression (Geriatric Depression Scale), self-efficacy (Stanford Inventory of Cancer Patient Adjustment), social support (Modified Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors), physical and emotional factors (UCLA Prostate Cancer Index), and social function (SF-36 subscale). Results indicate that men with high self-efficacy and less sexual bother were 45% and 55% less likely to have depressive symptoms, respectively. Findings from this study add to the limited amount of information on the complex relationship between prostate cancer treatment and depression in men.

The benefits of adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia: a metaanalysis

The purpose of this metaanalysis was to determine the benefits of postoperative epidural analgesia in patients operated on under general anesthesia. By searching the American National Library of Medicine's Pubmed database from 1966 to July 10, 2004, 70 studies were identified. These included 5402 patients, of which 2660 had had epidural analgesia. Epidural analgesia reduces the incidence of arrhythmia, odds ratio (OR) = 0.59 (95%CI = 0.42, 0.81, P = 0.001); time to tracheal extubation, OR = -3.90 h (95%CI = -6.37, -1.42, P = 0.002); intensive care unit stay, OR = -2.94 h (95%CI = -5.66, -0.22, P = 0.03); visual analogical pain (VAS) scores at rest, OR = -0.78 (95%CI = -0.99, -0.57, P < 0.00001) and during movement, OR = -1.28 (95%CI = -1.81, -0.75, P < 0.00001); maximal blood epinephrine, OR = -165.70 pg.ml(-1) (95%CI = -252.18, -79.23, P = 0.0002); norepinephrine, OR = -134.24 pg.ml(-1) (95%CI = -247.92, -20.57, P = 0.02); cortisol, OR = -55.81 nmol.l(-1) (95%CI = -79.28, -32.34, P < 0.00001); and glucose concentrations achieved, OR = -0.87 nmol.l(-1) (95%CI = -1.37, -0.37, P = 0.0006). It also reduces the first 24-h morphine consumption, OR = -13.62 mg (95%CI = -22.70, -4.54, P = 0.003), and improves the forced vital capacity (FVC), OR = 0.23 l (95%CI = 0.09, 0.37, P = 0.001) at 24 h. A thoracic epidural containing a local anesthetic reduces the incidence of renal failure: OR = 0.34 (95%CI = 0.14, 0.81, P = 0.01). Epidural analgesia may thus offer many advantages over other modes of postoperative analgesia.

General versus spinal anesthesia with different forms of sedation in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: Results of a prospective, randomized study

AIM

To assess the impact of spinal anesthesia (SpA) combined with three different forms of conscious sedation on intraoperative and postoperative outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for organ confined prostate cancer (pCa).

METHODS

A total of 121 consecutive patients with pCa undergoing RRP were randomized into four groups. They were randomized as follows: group 1 (general anesthesia: 34 patients), group 2 (lumbar 2 to lumbar 3 interspace SpA with diazepam as sedative agent: 28), group 3 (SpA with propofol: 30), and group 4 (SpA with midazolam: 29). Intraoperative and perioperative parameters were collected.

RESULTS

The present study showed that muscle relaxation throughout RRP was not different in the four groups; bleeding was significantly (P = 0.04) lower with SpA, regardless of the form of sedation. Group 3 patients reported the best postoperative oxygen saturation percentage by pulse oximetry and sedation score (P = 0.02; d.f. = 3 and P < 0.0001; d.f. = 3, respectively), the shortest waiting time in the postoperative holding area (P < 0.001; d.f. = 3), the lowest pain on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.0004; d.f. = 3), and the highest frequency of first flatus passage (P = 0.0001; d.f. = 3). A higher number of group 4 patients were able to carry out unassisted ambulation (P < 0.0001; d.f. = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Conscious sedation coupled with SpA is a safe, reliable and effective procedure for patients undergoing RRP. The use of propofol as sedative agent offers several advantages both over other types of conscious sedation and general anesthesia.

Anesthesia for radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy is one of most common treatment options currently recommended for clinically localized prostate cancer. Evaluation of intraoperative and postoperative complications is important in evaluation of relative morbidity of this treatment option. Furthermore, investigation of complications of surgical treatment in correlation with not only surgical technique, but comorbidity, ASA stage and anesthetic technique enables improvements in complete perioperative treatment and decrease of incidence of complications resulting from the procedure. Improvement of anesthetic techniques and use of new anesthetic agents contributes to better outcome of surgical treatment. For radical surgery, combined epidural analgesia and general anesthesia reduces postoperative complications and mortality. Benefits can be conferred most likely by altered coagulation activation in surgery, increased blood flow, reduction of operative stress response. Modalities for reduction of intraoperative blood loss during radical prostatectomy are normovolemic haemodilution, preoperative donation of blood for autologus transfusion and use of erythropoietin for increasing red cell mass.

Does the evidence support the use of spinal and epidural anesthesia for surgery?

When spinal and epidural anesthesia were introduced into clinical practice, their primary use was as an alternative to general anesthesia. Later, largely as a result of the realization that opioids could be safely and effectively used to produce selective spinal analgesia, spinal and epidural (neuraxial) analgesia began to be used specifically for the treatment of perioperative pain. We present a systematic review of the literature on neuraxial anesthesia and analgesia, new meta-analyses that illustrate the powerful effect of improvements in perioperative safety in general on the ability of neuraxial techniques to make a difference, and a consideration of why a literature analysis does not provide clear answers.

[Anaesthesia and prostate surgery]

OBJECTIVES

To review the current data about anaesthetic management in prostate surgery with special regards on analysis and prevention of specific risks, appropriate anaesthetic procedure keeping with surgery and patient, recognition and treatment of adverse events.

DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION

The Pubmed database was searched for articles (1990-2004) combined with references analysis of major articles on the field.

DATA SYNTHESIS

It is strongly recommended to settle germfree urine in the preoperative period. The thromboembolic risk of radical retropubic prostatectomy for cancer parallels lower abdomen oncologic surgery and is prolonged. Preoperative evaluation of cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological and metabolic comorbidity is a source of prognostic information and an essential tool in the management of elderly patients with prostate disease. Extreme patient positioning applied in prostate surgery induces haemodynamic and respiratory changes and are associated with severe muscular and nervous injuries. The laparoscopic access for radical prostatectomy is a growing alternative to the open surgical procedure. Acute normovolaemic haemodilution is a consistent and cost-effective blood conservation strategy in reducing allogenic blood transfusion for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Whether open transvesical or transurethral prostatectomy for treatment of benign hypertrophy depends on the size of the gland: transurethral resection is safe up to 80 g. Intrathecal anaesthesia with a T9 cephalad spread of sensory block, produces adequate conditions for transurethral prostatectomy and allows a rapid diagnosis of irrigating fluid absorption syndrome. In spite of recommended preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, bacteriemias are frequent during transurethral prostate resection.

Does anesthesia method affect implant-induced prostate swelling?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of anesthesia selection on prostate gland swelling, acute toxicity, and implant quality. The outcome of prostate brachytherapy is dependent on the dose intensity and distribution. Preoperative and intraoperative planning are intended to optimize radiation delivery, but do not account for the impact of postoperative swelling on interseed spacing. Factors that increase swelling can be expected to increase the disparity between the intended and actual dose delivery. General anesthesia has been implicated in increased intraoperative bleeding during prostate surgery.

METHODS

All iodine prostate implants planned and performed by the same radiation oncologist during a defined period were retrospectively reviewed. Excluded from the study were patients who had undergone preimplantation external beam radiotherapy or androgen deprivation. The remaining cases were analyzed to determine any association between the anesthesia type (general or spinal) and an increase in gland volume (from mapping transrectal ultrasonography to immediate postoperative computed tomography), implant quality (dosimetrically determined by minimal dose received by 90% of the volume [D90] and volume receiving 100% of prescribed dose [V100]), and acute toxicity (urinary retention, perineal/scrotal bruising).

RESULTS

A total of 83 implants met the inclusion criteria. The outcomes did not significantly differ in regard to the median volume increase (23% versus 23.5%), D90 (115% versus 113%), V100 (97% versus 96.5%), acute urinary retention (3% versus 4%), or incidence or severity of perineal or scrotal bruising. No correlation was found between anesthesia type and any of the studied outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although only a prospective, randomized trial can definitively answer the question, our results suggest that the anesthesia selection for prostate brachytherapy does not influence prostate swelling, acute toxicity, or implant dosimetric quality.

Non-analgetic effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents a brief overview of the non-analgetic effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia. It covers the cardiac, pulmonary and gastrointestinal effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia. The results of newer studies are of particular importance regarding mortality and major morbidity after thoracic epidural anaesthesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The clinical effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia are mainly attributed to a transient thoracic sympathetic block affecting different organs. Furthermore, local anaesthetic itself reabsorbed from the epidural space may contribute to the non-analgetic effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia. Experimental studies have suggested that thoracic epidural anaesthesia may attenuate the perioperative stress response after major surgery. The possible beneficial mechanisms of action include an improvement of left ventricular function by direct anti-ischaemic effects, a reduction in cardiovascular complications, an advance on gastrointestinal function, and a reduction in pulmonary complications, as well as a positive impact on the coagulation system and the postoperative inflammatory response. However, it is questionable whether these effects of thoracic epidural anaesthesia may lead to an improved perioperative outcome after major surgery. Recent studies have suggested that, despite the superior quality of pain relief and better quality of life, thoracic epidural anaesthesia does not reduce mortality and major morbidity, especially after major abdominal and cardiac surgery.

SUMMARY

Despite this controversy, the numerous positive effects and advantages of thoracic epidural anaesthesia are the reasons for its increasing popularity. However, the advantages of thoracic epidural anaesthesia must be incorporated into a multimodal treatment management aimed at improving outcomes after surgery.

General Anesthesia versus Epidural and General Anesthesia in Radical Cystectomy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to compare two different anesthetic techniques in radical cystectomy with regard to blood loss, transfusional requirements, intraoperative complications and the quality of analgesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

50 patients scheduled for radical cystectomy were randomized to two groups: group GA - general anesthesia, n = 25 and group CEGA - combined epidural and general anesthesia. The patients were monitored and hemodynamic changes, intraoperative bleeding, transfusional requirements, quality of analgesia and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the demographic characteristics of the two groups. Intraoperative bleeding which was 874.8 +/- 190.7 ml in the CEGA group and 1,248.3 +/- 343.4 ml in the GA group was statistically different (p < 0.05). Significantly more intraoperative blood transfusions in terms of units were required in the GA group. Analgesia was better in the CEGA group, with VAS values at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h significantly (p < 0.05) lower than those observed in the GA group. No significant differences in intraoperative hemodynamic parameters or postoperative complications were noted between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant differences in intraoperative bleeding were observed between the two groups: CEGA provides lower intraoperative bleeding and a better postoperative analgesia. Major operations such as radical cystectomy, which also is associated with considerable blood loss, a combination of general and epidural anesthesia may allow for less blood loss, with a better postoperative analgesia and without any increase in complications.

General versus spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: results of a prospective, randomized study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of general anesthesia (GA) versus spinal anesthesia (SpA) on intraoperative and postoperative outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy.

METHODS

Seventy-two consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomized into group 1 (GA: 34 patients) or group 2 (L2-L3 or L3-L4 SpA: 38 patients) and underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. The intraoperative and postoperative anesthetic and surgical variables were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean +/- SEM operative time was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.43). The overall blood loss was less in group 2 (P = 0.04). The mean +/- SEM postoperative time in the postoperative holding area was significantly shorter after SpA than after GA (P <0.0001). The perioperative pain outcome in the postoperative holding area was significantly better for group 2 than for group 1 (P = 0.0017), but postoperative pain on day 1 was not significantly different between the two groups. The postoperative sedation score was significantly less in group 2 than in group 1 (P <0.0001). On day 1, first flatus passed in a significantly larger number of patients in group 2 (P <0.0001), and the overall gait was greater for group 2 patients (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that SpA allows good muscle relaxation and a successful surgical outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Moreover, SpA results in less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a faster postoperative recovery than GA.

The role of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in surgical practice

OBJECTIVE

To review the potential and proven benefits and complications of epidural anesthesia/analgesia.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Advances in analgesia/anesthesia have improved patient satisfaction and perioperative outcomes. Epidural anesthesia/analgesia is one of these advances that is gaining rapid acceptance due to a perceived reduction in morbidity and overall patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted for all pertinent articles on epidural anesthesia/analgesia.

RESULTS

Retrospective, prospective, and meta-analysis studies have demonstrated an improvement in surgical outcome through beneficial effects on perioperative pulmonary function, blunting the surgical stress response and improved analgesia. In particular, significant reduction in perioperative cardiac morbidity ( approximately 30%), pulmonary infections ( approximately 40%), pulmonary embolism ( approximately 50%), ileus ( approximately 2 days), acute renal failure ( approximately 30%), and blood loss ( approximately 30%) were noted in our review of the literature. Potential complications related to epidural anesthesia/analgesia range from transient paresthesias (<10%) to potentially devastating epidural hematomas (0.0006%).

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural anesthesia/analgesia has been demonstrated to improve postoperative outcome and attenuate the physiologic response to surgery.

Surgical and postoperative factors affecting length of hospital stay after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy continues to comprise the mainstay of therapy for localized prostate carcinoma. However, caring for radical prostatectomy patients accounts for approximately half of the $1.7 billion annual cost of prostate carcinoma treatment. Length of stay (LOS) after surgery appears to be one of the main components of this cost. The first step in reducing cost is to identify those variables associated with LOS. Radical prostatectomy can be performed using two very different surgical techniques and with each technique different costs are incurred. The objective of the current study was to identify factors associated with LOS as a function of surgical approach. To reduce potential biases due to patient requests for longer hospitalization or physician preferences in that regard, secondary objectives were to identify factors associated with time to fluid intake (TTF) and time to consume solid foods (TTS).

METHODS

An institutional-based, retrospective chart review of 313 men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma who underwent either a perineal (RPP) or retropubic (RRP) prostatectomy at a single university center from March 1988 to October 1996 was undertaken. Information regarding LOS was available for 311 patients. Linear regression models were used to assess the association between covariables and LOS. Poisson regression models for count data were used to assess associations between covariables and the secondary endpoints of TTF and TTS. Covariables included: preoperative (age, race, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, clinical stage, lymph node resection, comorbidity, and admission time), intraoperative (surgical approach, surgeon, operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, anesthetic approach, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score), and postoperative (pain management complications and transfusions) parameters.

RESULTS

The median LOS was 4 days (range, 1-19 days) for RPP and 5 days (range, 3-16 days) for RRP approaches. The final model included six main effects and three interaction terms. Overall, LOS decreased over time with LOS decreasing at a faster rate in patients who underwent RPP. In general, patients who underwent RRP had an increased LOS compared with patients who underwent RPP. Complications from surgery and age increased the LOS for all patients; however, the increase was greater in patients who underwent RPP. In addition, the use of intraoperative epidural anesthesia and the increased use of postoperative narcotics were associated with increased LOS for patients undergoing both surgical approaches. TTF and TTS were significantly longer for patients who underwent the retropubic approach compared with those patients who underwent the perineal approach. After adjustment for surgical approach no other covariables were found to be associated with TTF. After adjustment for surgical approach, the occurrence of complications was found to be associated with TTS, indicating that patients who experienced complications took longer before they could tolerate solid foods.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the importance of clinical care pathways in reducing medical expenditures from radical prostatectomy, the results of the current study may contribute to the further refining of these pathways by highlighting the differences and similarities among the variables affecting LOS as a function of surgical approach.