A survey of neuraxial analgesic preferences in open and laparoscopic major abdominal surgery amongst anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic epidural analgesia versus other analgesic techniques in patients post-oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer surgery represents a high perioperative risk of complications to patients, such as postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Postoperative analgesia may influence these risks, but the most favourable analgesic technique is debated. This review aims to provide an updated evaluation of whether thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has benefits compared to other analgesic techniques in patients undergoing oesophagectomy surgery. Our hypothesis is that TEA reduces pain scores and PPCs compared to intravenous opioid analgesia in patients post-oesophagectomy.

METHODS

Electronic databases PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomised trials of analgesic interventions in patients undergoing oesophagectomy surgery. Only trials including thoracic epidural analgesia compared with other analgesic techniques were included. The primary outcome was a composite of respiratory infection, atelectasis and respiratory failure (PPCs), with pain scores at rest and on movement as secondary outcomes. Data was pooled using random effect models and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Data from a total of 741 patients in 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from 1993 to 2023 were included. Nine trials were open surgery, and one trial was laparoscopic. Relative to intravenous opioids, TEA significantly reduced a composite of PPCs (risk ratio (RR) 3.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-7.61; n = 222; 3 RCTs) and pain scores (0-100-mm visual analogue scale or VAS) at rest at 24 h (MD 9.02; 95% CI 5.88-12.17; n = 685; 10 RCTs) and 48 h (MD 8.64; 95% CI 5.91-11.37; n = 685; 10 RCTs) and pain scores on movement at 24 h (MD 14.96; 95% CI 5.46-24.46; n = 275; 4 RCTs) and 48 h (MD 16.60; 95% CI 8.72-24.47; n = 275; 4 RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Recent trials of analgesic technique in oesophagectomy surgery are restricted by small sample size and variation of outcome measurement. Despite these limitations, current evidence indicates that thoracic epidural analgesia reduces the risk of PPCs and severe pain, compared to intravenous opioids in patients following oesophageal cancer surgery. Future research should include minimally invasive surgery, non-epidural regional techniques and record morbidity, using core outcome measures with standardised endpoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023484720).

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.

Perioperative pain management in thoracic surgery: A survey of practices in Australia and New Zealand

There are few data on current trends in pain management for thoracic surgery in Australia and New Zealand. Several new regional analgesia techniques have been introduced for these operations in the past few years. Our survey aimed to assess current practice and perceptions towards various modalities of pain management for thoracic surgery among anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand. A 22-question electronic survey was developed and distributed in 2020 with the assistance of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Cardiac Thoracic Vascular and Perfusion Special Interest Group. The survey focused on four key domains-demographics, general pain management, operative technique, and postoperative approach. Of the 696 invitations, 165 complete responses were obtained, for a response rate of 24%. Most respondents reported a trend away from the historical standard of thoracic epidural analgesia, with a preference towards non-neuraxial regional analgesia techniques. If representative of anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand more widely, this trend may result in less exposure of junior anaesthetists to the insertion and management of thoracic epidurals, potentially resulting in reduced familiarity and confidence in the technique. Furthermore, it demonstrates a notable reliance on surgically or intraoperatively placed paravertebral catheters as the primary analgesic modality, and suggests the need for future studies assessing the optimal method of catheter insertion and perioperative management. It also gives some insight into the current opinion and practice of the respondents with regard to formalised enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, acute pain services, opioid-free anaesthesia, and current medication selection.

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.

Efficacy of opioid spinal analgesia for postoperative pain management after pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of single-shot opioid spinal analgesia after pancreatoduodenectomy remains understudied and lacks comparison to standard continuous thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA).

METHODS

Pancreatoduodenectomy patients who underwent TEA or opioid spinal for postoperative pain management from 2015 to 2020 were included in this observational cohort study. Primary outcome was patient-reported mean daily pain scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and length of stay (LOS). Multivariable linear regression models were constructed to compare risk-adjusted outcomes.

RESULTS

180 patients were included: 56 TEA and 124 opioid spinal. Compared to epidural patients, opioid spinal patients were more likely to be older (67.0 vs. 64.6, p=0.045), have greater BMI (26.5 vs. 24.4, p=0.02), and less likely to be smokers (19.4% vs. 41.1%, p=0.002). Opioid spinal, compared to TEA, was associated with lower intraoperative MMEs (0.25 vs. 22.7, p<0.001) and postoperative daily MMEs (7.9 vs. 10.3, p=0.03) on univariate analysis. However, after multivariable adjustment, there was no difference in average pain scores across the postoperative period (spinal vs. epidural: 4.18 vs. 4.14, p=0.93), daily MMEs (p=0.50), or LOS (p=0.23).

DISCUSSION

There was no significant difference in postoperative pain scores, opioid use, or LOS between patients managed with TEA or opioid spinal after pancreatoduodenectomy.

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.

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

Effective pain control enhances patient recovery after surgery. Laparoscopic techniques for major abdominal surgery are increasingly utilised to reduce surgical trauma. Intrathecal morphine is an attractive analgesic option that is gaining popularity. However, limited evidence guides its use in the setting of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, enhanced recovery after surgery pathways advocate opioid-sparing techniques. We conducted a feasibility trial to compare intrathecal morphine with non-neuraxial analgesia in laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted major abdominal surgery to inform the design of a future large clinical trial. This multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at two tertiary hospitals in Australia. Fifty-one patients were randomly allocated to receive either intrathecal morphine (intervention group) or a sham subcutaneous injection of normal saline in the lumbar area (control group) immediately before the induction of general anaesthesia. Co-primary outcomes were patient recruitment and successful adherence to treatment allocation as per the study protocol. The primary endpoints of feasibility and protocol adherence were met with a 46% recruitment rate (51 of 110 eligible patients) and 96% protocol adherence. There was only one patient with failed access to the intrathecal space. For secondary endpoints, fewer patients in the intrathecal morphine group required opioids in the post-anaesthesia care unit, their postoperative pain scores at rest were lower across the four time-points measured (p = 0.007), but not dynamic pain scores (p = 0.061), and pruritus was more common following intrathecal morphine (p = 0.007). Total oral morphine equivalents until postoperative day 3 were less in the intrathecal morphine group (median (95%CI) difference 82 (-13 to 168) mg), but this reduction was not statistically significant (p = 0.10). These findings support conducting a definitive clinical trial.