Epidural infusion of bupivacaine 0.0625% plus fentanyl 3.3 micrograms/ml provides better postoperative analgesia than patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine after gynaecological laparotomy

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.

Managing Postoperative Pain After Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery in the Era of the Opioid Epidemic

In this review, we examine the evidence behind nonopioid medication alternatives, peripheral nerve blocks, surgical techniques, and postoperative recovery protocols that can help minimize and effectively treat postoperative pain after minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS). Because of the depth and heterogeneity of the data, a narrative review was performed of reported interventions. A comprehensive review was performed of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database with a focus on randomized controlled trials. In the absence of literature specific to benign gynecology, similar specialty or procedural data were reviewed. A variety of nonopioid medications, surgical techniques, and postoperative recovery protocols have shown significant improvements in postoperative pain after gynecologic surgery. Nonopioid medication options that are beneficial include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiepileptics. Incision infiltration with local anesthesia also significantly reduces pain. Surgically, minimally invasive approaches, reducing the laparoscopic trocar size to <10 mm, and evacuating the pneumoperitoneum at the end of the case all have significant benefits. Lastly, enhanced recovery pathways show promise in reducing pain after MIGS. By using a multimodal approach, minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons can help to minimize and manage postoperative pain with less reliance on opioid pain medications.

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).

Impact of epidural analgesia on mortality and morbidity after surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To quantify benefit and harm of epidural analgesia, compared with systemic opioid analgesia, in adults having surgery under general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia decreases postoperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and BIOSIS till July 2012. We included randomized controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia (with local anesthetics, lasting for ≥ 24 hours postoperatively) with systemic analgesia in adults having surgery under general anesthesia, and reporting on mortality or any morbidity endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 125 trials (9044 patients, 4525 received epidural analgesia) were eligible. In 10 trials (2201 patients; 87 deaths), reporting on mortality as a primary or secondary endpoint, the risk of death was decreased with epidural analgesia (3.1% vs 4.9%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.93). Epidural analgesia significantly decreased the risk of atrial fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia, deep vein thrombosis, respiratory depression, atelectasis, pneumonia, ileus, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also improved recovery of bowel function, but significantly increased the risk of arterial hypotension, pruritus, urinary retention, and motor blockade. Technical failures occurred in 6.1% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults having surgery under general anesthesia, concomitant epidural analgesia reduces postoperative mortality and improves a multitude of cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal morbidity endpoints compared with patients receiving systemic analgesia. Because adverse effects and technical failures cannot be ruled out, individual risk-benefit analyses and professional care are recommended.

Neuraxial blockade for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Various beneficial effects derived from neuraxial blocks have been reported. However, it is unclear whether these effects have an influence on perioperative mortality and major pulmonary/cardiovascular complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to summarize Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the effects of neuraxial blockade on perioperative rates of death, chest infection and myocardial infarction by integrating the evidence from all such reviews that have compared neuraxial blockade with or without general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for different types of surgery in various populations. Our secondary objective was to summarize the evidence on adverse effects (an adverse event for which a causal relation between the intervention and the event is at least a reasonable possibility) of neuraxial blockade. Within the reviews, studies were selected using the same criteria.

METHODS

A search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on July 13, 2012. We have (1) included all Cochrane systematic reviews that examined participants of any age undergoing any type of surgical (open or endoscopic) procedure, (2) compared neuraxial blockade versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia or neuraxial blockade plus general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for surgical anaesthesia and (3) included death, chest infection, myocardial infarction and/or serious adverse events as outcomes. Neuraxial blockade could consist of epidural, caudal, spinal or combined spinal-epidural techniques administered as a bolus or by continuous infusion. Studies included in these reviews were selected on the basis of the same criteria. Reviews and studies were selected independently by two review authors, who independently performed data extraction when data differed from one of the selected reviews. Data were analysed by using Review Manager Version 5.1 and Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 2.2.044.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews were selected for this overview. Their scores on the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire varied from four to six of a maximal possible score of seven. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial blockade reduced the zero to 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.94; I(2) = 0%) based on 20 studies that included 3006 participants. Neuraxial blockade also decreased the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79; I(2) = 0%) based on five studies that included 400 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between the two techniques (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.37; I(2) = 0%) based on six studies with 849 participants. Compared with general anaesthesia alone, the addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia did not affect the zero to 30-day mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.51; I(2) = 0%) based on 18 studies with 3228 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between combined neuraxial blockade-general anaesthesia and general anaesthesia alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; I(2) = 0%) based on eight studies that included 1580 participants. The addition of a neuraxial block to general anaesthesia reduced the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.98; I(2) = 9%) after adjustment for publication bias and based on nine studies that included 2433 participants. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate for all six comparisons.No serious adverse events (seizure or cardiac arrest related to local anaesthetic toxicity, prolonged central or peripheral neurological injury lasting longer than one month or infection secondary to neuraxial blockade) were reported. The quality of the reporting score of complications related to neuraxial blocks was nine (four to 12 (median range)) of a possible maximum score of 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with general anaesthesia, a central neuraxial block may reduce the zero to 30-day mortality for patients undergoing surgery with intermediate to high cardiac risk (level of evidence, moderate). Further research is required.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled analgesia for pain relief in uterine artery embolization for uterine fibroids: a decision analysis

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare the costs and effects of epidural analgesia (EDA) to those of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) for postintervention pain relief in women having uterine artery embolization (UAE) for systematic uterine fibroids.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on data from the literature by constructing a decision tree to model the clinical pathways for estimating the effects and costs of treatment with EDA and PCA. Literature on EDA for pain-relief after UAE was missing, and therefore, data on EDA for abdominal surgery were used. Outcome measures were compared costs to reduce one point in visual analogue score (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain 6 and 24 h after UAE and risk for complications.

RESULTS

Six hours after the intervention, the VAS was 3.56 when using PCA and 2.0 when using EDA. The costs for pain relief in women undergoing UAE with PCA and EDA were <euro>191 and <euro>355, respectively. The costs for EDA to reduce the VAS score 6 h after the intervention with one point compared with PCA were <euro>105 and <euro>179 after 24 h. The risk of having a complication was 2.45 times higher when using EDA.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this indirect comparison of EDA for abdominal surgery with PCA for UAE show that EDA would provide superior analgesia for post UAE pain at 6 and 24 h but with higher costs and an increased risk of complications.

WITHDRAWN: Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

There are two common techniques for postoperative pain control after intra-abdominal surgery: patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous opioids and continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). It is uncertain which method has better pain control and fewer adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare PCA opioid therapy with CEA for pain control after intra-abdominal surgery in terms of analgesic efficacy, side effects, patient satisfaction and surgical outcome by meta-analysis of the relevant trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2002), EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2002), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of adult patients after intra-abdominal surgery comparing the effect of two pain control regimens in terms of analgesic efficacy and side effects. In the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) group the patient should be able to operate the device himself. In the continuous epidural analgesia group there was no PCA device.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies involving 711 participants were included. The PCA group had a higher pain visual analogue scale than the CEA group during 6, 24 and 72 hour periods. The weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval of resting pain was 1.74 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.19), 0.99 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.33), and 0.63 (95% CI 0.24 to 1.01), respectively. The length of hospital stay and other adverse effects were not statistically different except that the incidence of pruritus was lower in the PCA group, odds ratio of 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.64).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CEA is superior to opioid PCA in relieving postoperative pain for up to 72 hours in patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery, but it is associated with a higher incidence of pruritus. There is insufficient evidence to draw comparisons about the other advantages and disadvantages of these two methods of pain relief.

Risk factors of vomiting among females on patient-controlled epidural analgesia

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain and postoperative vomiting (POV) are both sources of distress in the postoperative period. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is used in patients undergoing lower extremity surgery to improve postoperative quality but is accompanied by a certain incidence of vomiting. We wanted to determine the risk factors of POV in patients using PCEA with the aim of improving the quality of the postoperative period.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the risk factors among patients using PCEA after lower-limb surgery under regional anesthesia. A total of 195 patients (91 males, 104 females) were enrolled. They were categorized into 2 groups: vomiting and non-vomiting. We found that female gender predominated in the vomiting group. Hence, we analyzed the female subgroup in order to find the risk factors of vomiting in the female PCEA population.

RESULTS

Female gender was the most significant factor related to vomiting (crude OR, 11.55; 95% CI, 4.88-27.33). From analysis of the female subgroup, puncture site (OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.41-11.79), catheter length in the epidural space (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16-0.50) and patient's height (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.14) were also factors for vomiting, i.e. higher epidural catheter puncture site, shorter length in the epidural space, and greater height caused a higher incidence of POV.

CONCLUSION

The most important risk factor for POV in patients using PCEA was female gender. Among the female subgroup, the risk factors for POV included higher epidural catheter puncture site, shorter length in the epidural space and greater body height.

Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

There are two common techniques for postoperative pain control after intra-abdominal surgery: patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous opioids and continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). It is uncertain which method has better pain control and fewer adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare PCA opioid therapy with CEA for pain control after intra-abdominal surgery in terms of analgesic efficacy, side effects, patient satisfaction and surgical outcome by meta-analysis of the relevant trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2002), EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2002), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of adult patients after intra-abdominal surgery comparing the effect of two pain control regimens in terms of analgesic efficacy and side effects. In the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) group the patient should be able to operate the device himself. In the continuous epidural analgesia group there was no PCA device.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies involving 711 participants were included. The PCA group had a higher pain visual analogue scale than the CEA group during 6, 24 and 72 hour periods. The weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval of resting pain was 1.74 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.19), 0.99 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.33), and 0.63 (95% CI 0.24 to 1.01), respectively. The length of hospital stay and other adverse effects were not statistically different except that the incidence of pruritus was lower in the PCA group, odds ratio of 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.64).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CEA is superior to opioid PCA in relieving postoperative pain for up to 72 hours in patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery, but it is associated with a higher incidence of pruritus. There is insufficient evidence to draw comparisons about the other advantages and disadvantages of these two methods of pain relief.

Respiratory and haemodynamic effects of acute postoperative pain management: evidence from published data

BACKGROUND

This study examines the evidence from published data concerning the adverse respiratory and haemodynamic effects of three analgesic techniques after major surgery; i.m. analgesia, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and epidural analgesia.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search of the literature was conducted for publications concerned with the management of postoperative pain. Information relating to variables indicative of respiratory depression and of hypotension was extracted from these studies. Over 800 original papers and reviews were identified. Of these papers, 212 fulfilled the inclusion criteria but only 165 provided usable data on adverse effects. Pooled data obtained from these studies, which represent the experience of a total of nearly 20,000 patients, form the basis of this study.

RESULTS

There was considerable variability between studies in the criteria used for defining respiratory depression and hypotension. The overall mean (95% CI) incidence of respiratory depression of the three analgesic techniques was: 0.3 (0.1-1.3)% using requirement for naloxone as an indicator; 1.1 (0.7-1.7)% using hypoventilation as an indicator; 3.3 (1.4-7.6)% using hypercarbia as an indicator; and 17.0 (10.2-26.9)% using oxygen desaturation as an indicator. For i.m. analgesia, the mean (95% CI) reported incidence of respiratory depression varied between 0.8 (0.2-2.5) and 37.0 (22.6-45.9)% using hypoventilation and oxygen desaturation, respectively, as indicators. For PCA, the mean (95% CI) reported incidence of respiratory depression varied between 1.2 (0.7-1.9) and 11.5 (5.6-22.0)%, using hypoventilation and oxygen desaturation, respectively, as indicators. For epidural analgesia, the mean (95% CI) reported incidence of respiratory depression varied between 1.1 (0.6-1.9) and 15.1 (5.6-34.8)%, using hypoventilation and oxygen desaturation, respectively, as indicators. The mean (95% CI) reported incidence of hypotension for i.m. analgesia was 3.8 (1.9-7.5)%, for PCA 0.4 (0.1-1.9)%, and for epidural analgesia 5.6 (3.0-10.2)%. Whereas the incidence of respiratory depression decreased over the period 1980-99, the incidence of hypotension did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming a mixture of analgesic techniques, Acute Pain Services should expect an incidence of respiratory depression, as defined by a low ventilatory frequency, of less than 1%, and an incidence of hypotension related to analgesic technique of less than 5%.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological laparotomies: a comparison of tropisetron and ondansetron

In a randomized, double-blind study, the antiemetic efficacy of a single bolus of tropisetron 5 mg (group T, 37 patients), ondansetron 4 mg (group O, 39 patients) or saline (group C, 45 patients) given at induction was compared in a homogeneous group of 121 patients undergoing gynaecological laparotomy and receiving postoperative patient-controlled intravenous morphine for 24 to 48 hours. Fewer group T and group O patients developed severe nausea compared to group C (P < 0.01, log rank test in Kaplan-Meier analysis). Group T patients also had lower nausea scores than group O at 8 to 16h (P < 0.05). The overall incidences of severe nausea in groups T, O, and C were 5.4%, 17.9%, and 44.4% respectively (P < 0.001, group T vs group C; P < 0.05 group O vs group C). In conclusion, the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists tropisetron and ondansetron were superior to placebo in preventing PONV.

Development and evaluation of combined rectus sheath and ilioinguinal blocks for abdominal gynaecological surgery

We describe the development of a technique of combined rectus sheath and ilioinguinal blocks for patients undergoing abdominal gynaecological surgery, and its use in a series of 37 patients (21 midline and 16 transverse incisions). Up to 60 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% with adrenaline 1:400,000 was used, depending on the patient's weight. Median (interquartile range) total morphine requirement (including 0.15 mg x kg(-1) given intra-operatively) up to 48 h after surgery was 0.34 (0.2-0.38) [corrected] mg x kg(-1) for midline incisions and 0.47 (0.35-0.64) [corrected] mg x kg(-1) for transverse incisions; no other systemic opioids were given. Six-hourly pain scores within the first 48 h after surgery were < or =1 (mild pain) in 11 out of 21 (52%) and < or =2 (moderate pain) in 18 out of 21 (86%) patients with midline incisions and in 5 out of 16 (31%) and 13 out of 16 (81%) patients with transverse incisions, respectively. No patient had emetic symptoms worse than mild nausea during the 48-h postoperative study period.