A comparison of multimodal perioperative analgesia to epidural pain management after gastric bypass surgery

Laparoscopic-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) Block as Part of Multimodal Analgesia in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program: a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the ultrasound guidance of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks has allowed greater precision of needle placement in the desired tissue plane, visualization of the abdominal wall muscles can be hindered by morbid obesity and could lead to failed regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and effect of laparoscopic-guided TAP block in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and to compare it with port-site infiltration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed. Patients were randomized into two groups: patients undergoing laparoscopic-guided TAP (TAP-lap) and patients undergoing port-site infiltration (PSI). Pain quantification as measured by visual analogic scale (VAS) and morphine needs during the first 24 h were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients were included, 70 in each group. The mean operation time was 83.3 + 15.6 min in TAP-lap and 80.5 + 14.4 min in PSI (NS). The mean postoperative pain, as measured by VAS, 24 h after surgery was 16.8 + 11.2 mm in PSI and 10 + 8.1 mm in TAP-lap (p = 0.001). Morphine rescues were necessary in 13.2% in PSI and 2.9% in TAP-lap (p = 0.026). The mean hospital stay was 2.1 + 1.2 days in TAP-lap and 2.9 + 1.3 days in PSI (p = 0.019). Hospital discharge during the first 48 h after surgery was possible in 52.9% of the patients in PSI and 71% in TAP-lap (OR 4.75; 95% CI 2.1-10.8; p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-guided TAP block can reduce postoperative pain, opioid needs, and hospital stay, when compared with port-site infiltration with the same anesthetic drug, without increasing operation time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03203070.

Efficacy of perineural dexamethasone with ropivacaine in thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia in elective thoracotomy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of perineural dexamethasone with ropivacaine in multimodal analgesia for thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) in patients undergoing elective thoracotomy.

Patients and methods

Ninety-six patients undergoing thoracotomy were enrolled in this trial and randomized to adjuvant therapy for TPVB: group S (saline), group R (0.5% ropivacaine), or group RD (5 mg dexamethasone and 0.5% ropivacaine). Postoperative analgesia, recovery duration, and chronic pain were recorded.

Results

Groups R and RD spent less time in the postanaesthesia care unit, had earlier out-of-bed activity, and had shorter postoperative hospital stays compared with group S. The RD group regained consciousness faster and had lower acute pain scores and used less patient-controlled analgesia during the first 72 h after surgery compared with group S. Postthoracotomy pain was decreased in group RD (19.0%) compared with group S (47.6%) 3 months postoperatively, p = 0.050.

Conclusion

Perineural dexamethasone with ropivacaine for TPVB improves postoperative analgesia quality, reduces recovery time, and may decrease the incidence of chronic pain after thoracotomy with an opioid-based anesthetic regimen.

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.

Efficacy of Nalbuphine with Flurbiprofen on Multimodal Analgesia with Transverse Abdominis Plane Block in Elderly Patients Undergoing Open Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blinded Trial

Objective

To assess different doses of nalbuphine with flurbiprofen compared to sufentanil with flurbiprofen in multimodal analgesia efficacy for elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery with a transverse abdominis plane block (TAPB).

Methods

158 elderly patients scheduling for elective open gastrointestinal surgery under general anesthesia and TAPB were randomly assigned to four groups according to different doses of nalbuphine with flurbiprofen in postoperative intravenous analgesia (PCIA). Postoperative pain intensity, effective pressing numbers of PCIA, and adverse effects were recorded at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery.

Results

Postoperative pain intensity, effective pressing numbers, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were similar among the four groups after surgery, while the severity of PONV was decreased in Group L compared with Group S at 6, 12, and 48 h after surgery. No individual experienced pruritus, respiratory depression, or hypotension.

Conclusions

Low dose of nalbuphine (15 μg·kg⁻¹·ml⁻¹) combined with flurbiprofen is superior for elderly patients undergoing elective open gastrointestinal surgery with TAPB in terms of the efficient postoperative analgesia and decreased severity of PONV. This trial is registered with NCT02984865.

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).

Controversies in perioperative anesthetic management of the morbidly obese: I am a surgeon, why should I care?

Over the last four decades, as the rates of obesity have increased, so have the challenges associated with its anesthetic management. In the present review, we discuss perioperative anesthesia management issues that are modifiable by the early involvement of the surgical team. We sum up available evidence or expert opinion on issues like patient positioning, postoperative analgesia, and the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation on surgical anastomosis. We also address established predictors of higher perioperative risk and suggest possible management strategies and concerns of obese patients undergoing same day procedures. Finally, a generalized pharmacological model relevant to altered pharmacokinetics in these patients is presented.

Does epidural morphine loading in addition to thoracic epidural analgesia benefit the postoperative management of morbidly obese patients undergoing open bariatric surgery? A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Insufficient data exist regarding postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia for morbidly obese patients undergoing open bariatric surgery. This study evaluated the effectiveness of morphine loading in a postoperative thoracic epidural analgesic regimen of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with levobupivacaine combined with continuously administered epidural morphine in this patient group.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 48 superobese patients (body mass index of ≥ 50 kg/m(2)) undergoing open bariatric surgery were randomly allocated to three groups of 16 patients each. Postoperatively, all groups received a continuous epidural morphine infusion of 0.2 mg/h with 0.1 % levobupivacaine via PCEA. Group A did not receive intraoperative epidural morphine loading, while groups B and C received an intraoperative 1- and 2-mg morphine bolus, respectively. Levobupivacaine consumption via PCEA (primary outcome), pain scores at rest and on cough, the time to return of bowel function and ambulation, and arterial blood gas levels (secondary outcomes) were recorded.

RESULTS

The increase in perioperative morphine administration (groups B and C) led to a significantly prolonged return to normal bowel function and delayed ambulation (P<0.05 to 0.01, respectively), without an improvement in postoperative analgesia or a reduction in local anesthetic consumption. Although the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was high in all groups, no respiratory depression was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic PCEA with 0.1 % levobupivacaine combined with continuous epidural morphine administration of 0.2 mg/h without morphine loading is an effective postoperative analgesic regimen that provides adequate pain control, early ambulation, and early return of bowel function in superobese patients, particularly those with OSA.

Dexmedetomidine for awake intubation and an opioid-free general anesthesia in a superobese patient with suspected difficult intubation

Super-obese patients (body mass index [BMI] >50 kg/m(2)) are at a particularly high risk of anesthesia-related complications during postoperative period, eg, critical respiratory events including respiratory arrest, and over-sedation leading to problems with maintaining airway open, hypoxia and hypercapnia. In this paper authors present a case of a 39-year-old super-obese (BMI 62.3 kg/m(2)) female patient who was admitted for surgical treatment of obesity. Preanesthesia evaluation revealed hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) as comorbidities as well as potential for a difficult intubation- neck circumference of 46 cm, reduced neck mobility and DM type 2. Patient was intubated using "awake intubation" method using topical anesthesia and dexmedetomidine infusion. General anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and dexmedetomidine infusion instead of opioid administration in "opioid-free anesthesia method".

Epidural analgesia for pancreatoduodenectomy: a critical appraisal

INTRODUCTION

Epidural analgesia has emerged as a commonly applied method to improve pain management and reduce perioperative complications in major abdominal surgery. However, there is no detailed analysis of its efficacy for pancreatic operations. This study compares clinical and economic outcomes after epidural and intravenous analgesia for pancreatoduodenectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data for 233 consecutive patients, who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, were prospectively acquired and retrospectively reviewed at a single institution, pancreato-biliary specialty practice. From October 2001 to February 2007, all patients were offered thoracic epidural analgesia, and those who declined received intravenous analgesia. Perioperative pain management was dictated as an element of a standardized clinical pathway for pancreatic resections. Clinical and economic outcomes were analyzed and compared for epidural analgesia and intravenous analgesia groups.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-five patients received epidural analgesia, and 48 received intravenous analgesia, with equivalent baseline patient demographics between the groups. Patients administered epidural analgesia had lower pain scores but significantly higher rates of major complications. Pancreatic fistulae and postoperative ileus occurred more frequently, and patients with epidural analgesia more often required discharge to rehabilitation facilities. A trend towards longer hospitalizations was observed among epidural analgesia patients, but total costs were statistically equivalent between the groups. Further analysis demonstrates that 31% of epidural infusions were aborted before anticipated (fourth postoperative day) because of hemodynamic compromise and/or inadequate analgesia. These select patients required more transfusions, aggressive fluid resuscitation, and subsequently suffered even higher rates of gastrointestinal and respiratory complications, all attributing to higher costs. Multivariate analysis demonstrates that preoperative hematocrit concentration less than 36%, elderly age (>75 years), and chronic pancreatitis predict failure of epidural infusions.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic epidural analgesia after pancreatic resections is associated with hemodynamic instability, which may compromise enteric anastomoses, gastrointestinal recovery, and respiratory function. These outcomes are exacerbated in poorly functioning epidurals and suggest that epidural analgesia may not be the optimal method for perioperative pain control when pancreatoduodenectomy is performed.