How Long Is a Transurethral Catheter Necessary in Patients Undergoing Thoracotomy and Receiving Thoracic Epidural Analgesia? Literature Review

Developments in Postoperative Analgesia in Open and Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery Over the Past Decade

Whether through minimally invasive or conventional open techniques, thoracic surgery is often reported to be one of the most painful surgical procedures due to the incision of intercostal and respiratory muscles, rib injury or resection, and placement of surgical drains. Some of the more severe complications related to poor analgesia include prolonged intensive care unit stay, mechanical ventilation, pneumonia, and the development of chronic postoperative pain syndromes. Over the past few decades, much progress has been made in recognizing the importance of multimodal analgesic techniques. These may include a variety of regional anesthetic techniques such as epidural anesthesia, fascial plane blocks, and intrapleural catheters, as well as the utilization of opioid and opioid-sparing oral regimens. This article provides an up-to-date review of pain management following thoracic surgery, emphasizing multimodal techniques and enhanced recovery pathways. In our review, we included articles published between 2010 and 2022. PubMed and Google Scholar were researched using the keywords thoracic, cardiac, pain control, thoracic epidural analgesia, fascial plane blocks, multimodal analgesia, and Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in thoracic surgery. Over 100 articles were then reviewed. We excluded articles not in English and articles that were not pertinent to cardiac or thoracic surgery. Eventually, 53 articles were included in the review, composed of clinical trials, case series, and retrospective cohort studies. A variety of pain control methods employed in thoracic and cardiac surgery range from opioids and opioid-sparing medications, such as acetaminophen and gabapentin, to regional techniques, such as fascial plane blocks to epidural anesthesia. Multimodal anesthesia combining regional and opioid-sparing analgesics and their combination in enhanced recovery protocols were shown to provide adequate pain control, decrease opioid consumption and lead to shorter lengths of stay. Postoperative pain control remains one of the biggest challenges in the care of thoracic surgery patients. Analgesic plans must be individualized for each patient. Multimodal analgesia remains the gold standard; however, more studies are still warranted. Finding the optimal combination of opioid and non-opioid pain medication and local anesthetic delivered via suitable regional technique will improve the outcomes and lead to successful patient recovery.

Recommendations from the Italian intersociety consensus on Perioperative Anesthesa Care in Thoracic surgery (PACTS) part 2: intraoperative and postoperative care

Introduction

Anesthetic care in patients undergoing thoracic surgery presents specific challenges that require a multidisciplinary approach to management. There remains a need for standardized, evidence-based, continuously updated guidelines for perioperative care in these patients.

Methods

A multidisciplinary expert group, the Perioperative Anesthesia in Thoracic Surgery (PACTS) group, was established to develop recommendations for anesthesia practice in patients undergoing elective lung resection for lung cancer. The project addressed three key areas: preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management (surgical and anesthesiologic care), and postoperative care and discharge. A series of clinical questions was developed, and literature searches were performed to inform discussions around these areas, leading to the development of 69 recommendations. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria.

Results

Recommendations for intraoperative care focus on airway management, and monitoring of vital signs, hemodynamics, blood gases, neuromuscular blockade, and depth of anesthesia. Recommendations for postoperative care focus on the provision of multimodal analgesia, intensive care unit (ICU) care, and specific measures such as chest drainage, mobilization, noninvasive ventilation, and atrial fibrillation prophylaxis.

Conclusions

These recommendations should help clinicians to improve intraoperative and postoperative management, and thereby achieve better postoperative outcomes in thoracic surgery patients. Further refinement of the recommendations can be anticipated as the literature continues to evolve.

Risk of Urinary Recatheterization for Thoracic Surgical Patients with Epidural Anesthesia

Background:

Current quality guidelines recommend the removal of urinary catheters on or before postoperative day two, to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI). The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact urinary catheter removal on the need for urinary recatheterization (UR) of patients with epidural anesthesia undergoing thoracic surgery.

Materials and Methods:

All patients undergoing thoracic surgery between November 4^th, 2017 and January 9^th, 2018 who had a urinary catheter placed at the time of intervention were prospectively evaluated. Patient characteristics including: history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), catheter related variables and rates of UR were collected through chart review and daily visits to the wards. BPH was defined as history of transurethral resection of the prostate or treatment with selective α₁-adrenergic receptor antagonists.

Results:

Over a two-month period 267 patients were included, 124 (46%) were male. Epidural catheters were placed in 88 (33%) patients. Median duration of urinary catheters for the cohort was 1 day (0 days – 18 days), and it was significantly higher in patients with epidural anesthesia (Table 1). Overall 20 (7%) patients required UR. On initial analysis, there was no statistical difference in the rate of UR among patients with and without epidural catheters [9/88 (10%) vs 11/179 (6%), p=0.23). The rate of UR was higher in males than in females (14/124 (11%) vs 6/143 (4%), p=0.03). Fifteen (12%) patients had a diagnosis of BPH. The rate of UR was three-times higher in this group than in those without BPH [4/15 (27%) vs 10/109 (9%) p=0.05]. Four (1%) patients developed a CAUTI during follow-up, and the rate of CAUTI was not different between those with and without epidural catheters.

Conclusion:

Urinary catheters in patients with thoracic epidural anesthesia can be safely removed, as evidenced by low reinsertion and infection rates. Removal of urinary catheters in patients with a history of BPH should be carefully evaluated, as over 1/4 will require urinary recatheterization in this subgroup. Further study of this group is needed to avoid unnecessary patient discomfort associated with recatheterization.

Prospective short-term feasibility study of perioperative suprapubic catheters in laparoscopic colectomy

INTRODUCTION

Here we report a prospective study on whether a temporary suprapubic catheter (SPC) can be safely inserted as a substitute for transurethral balloon catheterization during laparoscopy-assisted colectomy.

METHODS

Our subjects included 52 cases who gave informed consent to have an SPC inserted. These subjects were selected from cases who underwent laparoscopy-assisted surgery for primary colorectal cancer from October 2014 to August 2015.

RESULTS

An SPC was inserted into 45 of the original 52 cases. The median surgical duration was 220 min (range, 11-438 min), and the SPC insertion was performed at a median of 133 min (range, 9-384 min) after the start of surgery. Insertion required a median duration of 116 s. In one case (2.2%), the bladder was perforated by the paracentesis needle, and in two cases (4.4%), hematuria was observed at the time of insertion; however, surgery was completed without any incident in these three cases. Six of the remaining 42 cases (13.3%) demonstrated neither micturition desire nor independent urination on the day the catheter was clamped. In these cases, the clamp was released two to four times, and draining of an average of 586-mL urine, micturition desire, and independent urination were confirmed 2-4 days later.

CONCLUSION

Transurethral balloon catheterization is a simple procedure that is commonly used on surgical patients, but it can cause pain, discomfort, and infection. In contrast, SPC insertion is a procedure that avoids crossing the urethra and its associated disadvantages. Here we were able to demonstrate that the procedure can be safely used in laparoscopic surgery patients.

Continuous wound infiltration versus epidural analgesia after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery (POP-UP): a randomised controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is the international standard for pain treatment in abdominal surgery. Although some studies have advocated continuous wound infiltration with local anaesthetics, robust evidence is lacking, especially on patient-reported outcome measures. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of continuous wound infiltration in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled, open label, non-inferiority trial (POP-UP), we enrolled adult patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery by subcostal or midline laparotomy in two Dutch hospitals. Patients were centrally randomised (1:1) to receive either pain treatment with continuous wound infiltration using bupivacaine plus patient-controlled analgesia with morphine or to receive (patient-controlled) epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and sufentanil. All patients were treated within an enhanced recovery setting. Randomisation was stratified by centre and type of incision. The primary outcome was the mean Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS) from day 1-5, a validated composite endpoint of pain scores, opioid side-effects, and patient satisfaction (range 0 [best] to 28 [worst]). Analysis was per-protocol. The non-inferiority limit of the mean difference was + 3·0. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, number NTR4948.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 20, 2015, and Sept 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 105 eligible patients: 53 to receive continuous wound infiltration and 52 to receive epidural analgesia. One patient in the continuous wound infiltration group discontinued treatment, as did five in the epidural analgesia group; of these five patients, preoperative placement failed in three (these patients were treated with continuous wound infiltration instead), one patient refused an epidural, and data for the primary endpoint was lost for one. Thus, 55 patients were included in the continuous wound infiltration group and 47 in the epidural analgesia group for the per-protocol analyses. Mean OBAS was 3·8 (SD 2·4) in the continuous wound infiltration group versus 4·4 (2·2) in the epidural group (mean difference -0·62, 95% CI -1·54 to 0·30). Because the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI did not exceed +3·0, non-inferiority was shown. Four (7%) patients in the continuous wound infiltration group and five (11%) of those in the epidural group had an adverse event. One patient in the continuous wound infiltration group had a serious adverse event (temporary hypotension and arrhythmia after bolus injection); no serious adverse events were noted in the epidural group.

INTERPRETATION

These data suggest that continuous wound infiltration is non-inferior to epidural analgesia in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery within an enhanced recovery setting. Further large-scale trials are required to make a definitive assessment of non-inferiority.

FUNDING

Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.