Analgesia for major laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a randomised feasibility trial using intrathecal morphine

Application of Butorphanol versus Sufentanil in Multimode Analgesia via Patient Controlled Intravenous Analgesia After Hepatobiliary Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

We investigate the efficacy and safety of butorphanol in multimodal analgesia combined with dexmedetomidine and ketorolac via patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after hepatobiliary surgery, as compared with sufentanil.

Patients and Methods

Postoperative follow-up data of hepatobiliary surgery patients in Henan Provincial People's Hospital from March 2018 to June 2021 were collected retrospectively and divided into butorphanol group (group B) or sufentanil group (group S) according to the postoperative intravenous controlled analgesia scheme. The baseline characteristics and surgical information of the two groups were matched through propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

A total of 3437 patients were screened, and PSM yielded 1816 patients after matching, including 908 in the butorphanol group and 908 in the sufentanil group. Compared with group S, the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain on the first postoperative day and the second postoperative day was lower in group B during rest (3.2% vs 10.9%, P<0.001; 1.2% vs 4.6%, P<0.001), and during movement (7.0% vs 18.9%, P<0.001; 2.6% vs 8.7%, P<0.001). Patients receiving butorphanol had a lower morphine consumption (50mg vs 120mg, P<0.001). The bolus attempts of an analgesic pump in group B were significantly lower than in group S (1 vs 2, P<0.001). Postoperative hospital length of stay was shortened in group B (11d vs 12d, P=0.017). The occurrence of postoperative vomiting was lower in group B (1.4% vs 3.0%, P=0.025) than in group S. However, more patients in group B experienced dizziness (0.9% vs 0.1%, P=0.019).

Conclusion

Compared with sufentanil, the application of butorphanol in multimodal analgesia combined with dexmedetomidine and ketorolac via PCIA ameliorated postoperative pain after hepatobiliary surgery, with reduced opioid consumption and shorter postoperative hospital length of stay.

An update on mechanisms of pruritus and their potential treatment in primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma

Primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL), which include mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS), are a group of lymphoproliferative disorders characterized by clonal accumulation of neoplastic T-lymphocytes in the skin. Severe pruritus, one of the most common and distressing symptoms in primary CTCL, can significantly impair emotional well-being, physical functioning, and interpersonal relationships, thus greatly reducing quality of life. Unfortunately, effectively managing pruritus remains challenging in CTCL patients as the underlying mechanisms are, as of yet, not fully understood. Previous studies investigating the mechanisms of itch in CTCL have identified several mediators and their corresponding antagonists used for treatment. However, a comprehensive overview of the mediators and receptors contributing to pruritus in primary CTCL is lacking in the current literature. Here, we summarize and review the mediators and receptors that may contribute to pruritus in primary CTCL to explore the mechanisms of CTCL pruritus and identify effective therapeutic targets using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they described itch mediators and receptors in MF and SS. Overall, the available data suggest that proteases (mainly tryptase), and neuropeptides (particularly Substance P) may be of greatest interest. At the receptor level, cytokine receptors, MRGPRs, and TRP channels are most likely important. Future drug development efforts should concentrate on targeting these mediators and receptors for the treatment of CTCL pruritus.

Comparison of intrathecal low-dose bupivacaine and morphine with intravenous patient control analgesia for postoperative analgesia for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Thoracoscopic surgical techniques continue to advance, yet the intensity of postoperative pain remains significant, impeding swift patient recovery. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in postoperative pain and recuperation between patients receiving intrathecal morphine paired with low-dose bupivacaine and those administered general anesthesia exclusively.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 100 patients, who were allocated into three groups: Group M (5 μg/kg morphine intrathecal injection), Group B (5 μg/kg morphine combined with bupivacaine 3 mg intrathecal injection) and Group C (intrathecal sham injection). The primary outcome was the assessment of pain relief using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Additionally, intraoperative remifentanil consumption was quantified at the end of the surgery, and postoperative opioid use was determined by the number of patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) compressions at 48 h post-surgery. Both the efficacy of the treatments and any complications were meticulously recorded.

RESULTS

Postoperative NRS scores for both rest and exercise at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h were significantly lower in groups M and B than in group C (P<0.05). The intraoperative remifentanil dosage was significantly greater in groups M and C than in group B (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference between groups M and C (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in intraoperative propofol dosage across all three groups (P>0.05). Postoperative dosages of both sufentanil and Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were significantly less in groups M and B compared to group C (P<0.05). The time of first analgesic request was later in both groups M and B than in group C (P<0.05). Specific and total scores were elevated at 2 days postoperative when compared to scores at 1 day for all groups (P<0.05). Furthermore, at 1 day and 2 days postoperatively, both specific scores and total scores were higher in groups M and B compared to group C (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intrathecal administration of morphine combined with bupivacaine has been shown to effectively ameliorate acute pain in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: ChiCTR2200058544, registered 10/04/2022.

Pain in Colorectal Surgery: How Does It Occur and What Tools Do We Have for Treatment?

Pain is a complex entity with deleterious effects on the entire organism. Poorly controlled postoperative pain impacts the patient outcome, being associated with increased morbidity, inadequate quality of life and functional recovery. In the current surgical environment with less invasive surgical procedures increasingly being used and a trend towards rapid discharge home after surgery, we need to continuously re-evaluate analgesic strategies. We have performed a narrative review consisting of a description of the acute surgical pain anatomic pathways and the connection between pain and the surgical stress response followed by reviewing methods of multimodal analgesia in colorectal surgery found in recent literature data. We have described various regional analgesia techniques and drugs effective in pain treatment, emphasizing their advantages and concerns. We have also tried to identify present knowledge gaps requiring future research. Our review concludes that surgical pain has peculiarities that make its management complex, implying a consistent, multimodal approach aiming to block both peripheral and central pain pathways.

Postoperative analgesia for upper gastrointestinal surgery: a retrospective cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia is commonly used for upper gastrointestinal surgery. Intrathecal morphine is an appealing opioid-sparing non-epidural analgesic option, especially for laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

Following ethics committee approval, we extracted data from the electronic medical records of patients at Royal North Shore Hospital (Sydney, Australia) that had upper gastrointestinal surgery between November 2015 and October 2020. Postoperative morphine consumption and pain scores were modelled with a Bayesian mixed effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 427 patients were identified who underwent open (n = 300), laparoscopic (n = 120) or laparoscopic converted to open (n = 7) upper gastrointestinal surgery. The majority of patients undergoing open surgery received a neuraxial technique (thoracic epidural [58%, n = 174]; intrathecal morphine [21%, n = 63]) compared to a minority in laparoscopic approaches (thoracic epidural [3%, n = 4]; intrathecal morphine [12%, n = 14]). Intrathecal morphine was superior over non-neuraxial analgesia in terms of lower median oral morphine equivalent consumption and higher probability of adequate pain control; however, this effect was not sustained beyond postoperative day 2. Thoracic epidural analgesia was superior to both intrathecal and non-neuraxial analgesia options for both primary outcomes, but at the expense of higher rates of postoperative hypotension (60%, n = 113) and substantial technique failure rates (32%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that thoracic epidural analgesia was superior to intrathecal morphine, and intrathecal morphine was superior to non-neuraxial analgesia, in terms of reduced postoperative morphine requirements and the probability of adequate pain control in patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal surgery. However, the benefits of thoracic epidural analgesia and intrathecal morphine were not sustained across all time periods regarding control of pain. The study is limited by its retrospective design, heterogenous group of upper gastrointestinal surgeries and confounding by indication.

Spinal Anaesthesia as an Adjunct to General Anaesthesia for Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Rectal Amputation

Background

Spinal anaesthesia as an adjunct to general anaesthesia may reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption after laparoscopic abdominoperineal rectal amputation. We designed a randomized double blinded pilot study with two objectives: 1) to explore potential benefits of spinal anaesthesia as an adjunct to general anaesthesia and 2) to provide power and sample size estimations for potential differences between the groups. Primary outcome measures were postoperative pain and oral morphine equivalent (OMEq) consumption.

Methods

Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic abdominoperineal rectal amputation at the University Hospital of North Norway were randomised to spinal (n=5) or a sham spinal procedure (n=5). Numeric rating scale (NRS) and OMEq were monitored postoperatively for 72 h.

Results

Age, sex, body mass index, and ASA were not significantly different between the groups. During surgery, patients in the spinal group received less remifentanil (p=0.06). NRS was lower in the spinal group 1 hr after admittance to the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) (p=0.06) and on the first postoperative day at 8 AM (p=0.03). OMEq consumption in the PACU was lower in the spinal group (p=0.008), but no differences between the groups were detected after discharge to the ward. Sample size estimations revealed that eight patients in each group would be needed to study potential NRS differences after admission to the PACU and 23 patients in each group to study potential differences in OMEq consumption on day 1.

Conclusion

Spinal anaesthesia as an adjunct to general anaesthesia reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption after laparoscopic abdominoperineal rectal amputation. Data from the current study should be followed up by a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.

Clinical Trial Registration

Trial registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05406765).

Intrathecal Morphine Injection for Postoperative Analgesia Following Gender-Affirming Pelvic Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Background Gender-affirming pelvic surgery (GAPS) can be associated with significant postoperative pelvic pain. Given the lack of available peripheral nerve blocks to the perineum, intrathecal morphine (ITM) injection could offer a potent analgesic modality for this patient population. No prior studies to date have been performed examining the analgesic effects of intrathecal morphine for these patients. Methods This retrospective case-control study aims to understand the postoperative analgesic effects of intrathecal morphine for these patients with a historical comparison group of patients who did not receive intrathecal morphine. Results Fourteen patients presented for gender-affirming pelvic surgery over an eight-month period at a single institution and were offered intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia. Their analgesic results were compared to a similar historical group of 13 patients who were not offered or declined intrathecal morphine. Conclusions Intrathecal morphine injection is a potent analgesic modality for patients presenting for gender-affirming pelvic surgery.

Current approaches to acute postoperative pain management after major abdominal surgery: a narrative review and future directions

Poorly controlled postoperative pain is associated with increased morbidity, negatively affects quality of life and functional recovery, and is a risk factor for persistent pain and longer-term opioid use. Up to 10% of opioid-naïve patients have persistent opioid use after many types of surgeries. Opioid-related side-effects and the opioid abuse epidemic emphasise the need for alternative, opioid-minimising, multimodal analgesic strategies, including neuraxial (epidural/intrathecal) techniques, truncal nerve blocks, and lidocaine infusions. The preference for minimally invasive surgical techniques has changed anaesthetic and analgesic requirements in abdominal surgery compared with open laparotomy, leading to a decline in popularity of epidural anaesthesia and an increasing interest in intrathecal morphine and truncal nerve blocks. Limited research exists on patient quality of recovery using specific analgesic techniques after intra-abdominal surgery. Poorly controlled postoperative pain after major abdominal surgery should be a research priority as it affects patient-centred short-term and long-term outcomes (including quality of life scores, return to function measurements, disability-free survival) and has broad community health and economic implications.