Does regional analgesia for major surgery improve outcome? Focus on epidural analgesia

Delayed gastric emptying after pancreatoduodenectomy: an analysis of risk factors

BACKGROUND

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a frequent complication after pancreatoduodenectomy. Preoperative factors are limited and controversial. This study aims to identify associated factors related to this complication in the Colombian population.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was conducted. All patients over 18 years of age who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy were included. Associations with DGE syndrome were evaluated with logistic regression analysis, Odds ratio, and b-coefficient were provided when appropriate.

RESULTS

205 patients were included. Male patients constituted 54.15% (n = 111). 53 patients (25.85%) were diagnosed with DGE syndrome. Smoking habit (OR 17.58 p 0.00 95% CI 7.62-40.51), hydromorphone use > 0.6 mg/daily (OR 11.04 p 0.03 95% CI 1.26-96.66), bilirubin levels > 6 mg/dL (OR 2.51 p 0.02 95% CI 1.12-5.61), and pancreatic fistula type B (OR 2.72 p 0.02 CI 1.74-10.00).

DISCUSSION

Smoking history, opioid use (hydromorphone > 0.6 mg/Daily), type B pancreatic fistula, and bilirubin levels > 6 mg/dL should be considered as risk factors for DGE.

Managing chronic pain after breast cancer treatments: are web-based interventions the future?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Chronic post-treatment pain in breast cancer affects a high proportion of patients. Symptom burden and financial costs are increasingly impacting patients and healthcare systems because of improved treatments and survival rates. Supporting long-term breast cancer symptoms using novel methodology has been examined, yet few have explored the opportunity to utilise these interventions for prevention. This review aims to explore the need for, range of, and effectiveness of such interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Three papers describe risk factors for chronic pain, with six recent papers describing the use of interventions for acute pain in the surgical setting. The evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions to improve pain management in this setting is limited but tentatively positive. The results have to take into account the variation between systems and limited testing.

SUMMARY

Multiple types of intervention emerged and appear well accepted by patients. Most assessed short-term impact and did not evaluate for reduction in chronic pain. Such interventions require rigorous effectiveness testing to meet the growing needs of post-treatment pain in breast cancer. A detailed understanding of components of web-based interventions and their individual impact on acute pain and chronic pain is needed within future optimisation trials. Their effectiveness as preventative tools are yet to be decided.

Is Continuous Wound Infiltration a Better Option for Postoperative Pain Management after Open Nephrectomy Compared to Thoracic Epidural Analgesia?

BACKGROUND

Despite increasingly advanced minimally invasive percutaneous ablation techniques, surgery remains the only evidence-based therapy in curative intent for larger (>3-4 cm) renal tumors. Although minimally invasive surgery using (robotic-assisted) laparoscopic or retroperitoneoscopic approaches has gained popularity, open nephrectomy (ON) is still performed in 25% of cases, especially in tumors with central localization (partial ON) or large tumors with/without cava thrombus (total ON). As postoperative pain is one of the drawbacks of ON, our study aims to assess recovery and post-operative pain management using continuous wound infiltration (CWI) compared to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA).

METHODS

Since 2012, all patients undergoing ON at our tertiary cancer center at CHUV have been included in our prospective ERAS® (enhanced recovery after surgery) registry that is centrally stored in ERAS® Interactive Audit System (EIAS) secured server. This study represents an analysis of all patients operated on with partial or total ON at our center between 2012 and 2022. An additional analysis was performed for the estimations of the total cost of CWI and TEA, based on the diagnosis-related group method.

RESULTS

92 patients were included and analyzed in this analysis (n = 64 (70%) with CWI; n = 28 (30%) with TEA). Adequate oral pain control was earlier achieved in the CWI group compared to the TEA group (median 3 vs. 4 days; p = 0.001), whereas immediate postoperative pain relief was better in the TEA group (p = 0.002). Consequently, opioid use was higher in the CWI group (p = 0.004). Still, reported nausea was lower in the CWI group (p = 0.002). Median time to bowel recovery was similar in both groups (p = 0.03). A shorter LOS (0.5 days) was observed in patients managed with CWI, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.06). The use of CWI has reduced total hospital costs by nearly 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

TEA has better results in terms of postoperative pain management compared to CWI following ON. However, CWI is better tolerated, and causes less nausea and earlier recovery, which leads to a shorter length of stay. Given its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, CWI should be encouraged for ON.

Pediatric anesthesia practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study

Background and Aims

The onset of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought together the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA) to release a joint statement on anesthesia use. Their statement included a recommendation to use regional anesthesia whenever possible to mitigate the risk associated with aerosolizing procedures. We sought to examine the utilization of anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing a surgical procedure for fractures or ligament repairs before and during COVID-19.

Methods

Using the Premier Health Database, we retrospectively analyzed pediatric patients undergoing a surgical intervention for fractures or ligament repair before and during COVID-19. We sought to determine if there were differences in anesthesia use among this cohort during the two time periods. Fracture groups included shoulder and clavicle, humerus and elbow, forearm and wrist, hand and finger, pelvis and hip, femur and knee, leg and ankles, and foot and toes. Ligament procedures included surgical intervention for the anterior cruciate ligament and ulnar collateral ligament repair.

Results

We identified a total of 5935 patients undergoing a surgical procedure for fractures or ligament repairs before and during COVID-19. After exclusion for unknown anesthesia use, 2,807 patients were included in our cohort with 81.5% (n = 2288) of patients undergoing a procedure under general anesthesia, 6.4% (n = 181) under regional anesthesia, and 12.0% (n = 338) under combined general-regional anesthesia. There did not appear to be a significant difference in the type of anesthesia used before and during COVID-19 (p = 0.052).

Conclusions

Our study did not identify a difference in anesthesia use before and during COVID-19 among pediatric patients undergoing a surgical procedure. Further studies should estimate the change in anesthesia used during the time period when elective procedures were resumed.

The clinical impact of the perioperative epidural anesthesia on surgical outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a highly invasive procedure associated with high morbidity. Several preoperative variables are associated with postoperative complications. The role of perioperative factors is uncertain. The use of perioperative epidural analgesia is potentially associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications. We hypothesize that perioperative epidural analgesia might be associated with fewer surgical complications.

Methods

We reviewed data from 288 cases performed at our institution between 2012 and 2019, classifying patients into 2 groups: perioperative use of epidural analgesia and non-perioperative use of epidural analgesia. The decision to use epidural as an adjunct to general anesthesia was based on the judgment of the attending anesthesiologist. Uni- and multivariate analyses were then performed to determine factors associated with postoperative surgical complications, ie, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, among others, after adjusting for confounders.

Results

Baseline and intraoperative factors were similar between the groups, except for sex and postoperative surgical complications. In the univariate analyses, factors associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications were the diameter of the pancreatic duct ≥ 6 mm, hard pancreatic gland parenchyma texture, younger age (< 65 years), and perioperative use of epidural analgesia. In the multivariate analyses, perioperative use of epidural analgesia was significantly associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications (odds ratio = 0.31; 95% confidence interval: 0.13–0.75; P = .009), even after adjusting for significant covariates.

Conclusion

Perioperative use of epidural analgesia might be associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy even after adjusting for pancreatic gland parenchyma texture, pancreatic duct size, and age.

Optimal Perioperative Pain Management in Esophageal Surgery: An Evaluation of Paravertebral Analgesia

Background

For esophagectomy, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the standard of care for perioperative pain management. Although effective, TEA is associated with moderate to serious adverse events such as hypotension and neurologic complications. Paravertebral analgesia (PVA) may be a safe alternative. The authors hypothesized that TEA and PVA are similar in efficacy for pain treatment in thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared TEA with PVA in two consecutive series of 25 thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomies. In this study, TEA consisted of continuous epidural bupivacaine and sufentanil infusion with a patient-controlled bolus function. In PVA, the catheter was inserted by the surgeon under thoracoscopic vision during surgery. Administration of PVA consisted of continuous paravertebral bupivacaine infusion after a bolus combined with patient-controlled analgesia using intravenous morphine. The primary outcome was the median highest recorded Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) during the 3 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were vasopressor consumption, fluid administration, and length of hospital stay.

Results

In both groups, the median highest recorded NRS was 4 or lower during the first three postoperative days. The patients with PVA had a higher overall NRS (mean difference, 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.49–1.44). No differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

For the patients undergoing thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, TEA was superior to PVA, as measured by NRS during the first three postoperative days. However, both modes provided adequate analgesia, with a median highest recorded NRS of 4 or lower. These results could form the basis for a randomized controlled trial.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10172-1.

Epidural analgesia and mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Epidural analgesia (EA) has been the standard of care after major abdominal surgery for many years. This study aimed to correlate EA with postoperative complications, short- and long-term mortality in patients with and without EA after open surgery (OS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patient, clinical and outcome data were obtained from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and the Swedish Perioperative Registry. All adult patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer without metastases who underwent elective curative MIS or OS for colorectal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 and who had data recorded in both registries, were included in the study. Data were analyzed for OS and MIS procedures separately. A Poisson regression model was used to investigate the association between EA and the outcomes of interest.

Results

Five thousand seven hundred sixty-two patients were included in the study, 2712 in the MIS and 3050 patients in the OS group. After adjusting for patient specific and clinically relevant variables in the regression model, no statistically significant difference in risk for complications; 30-day, 90-day, and up to 3-year mortality following either MIS or OS could be detected between the EA+ and EA-cohorts.

Conclusions

In this large study cohort, EA as part of the comprehensive care provided was not associated with a reduction in postoperative complications risk or improved 30-day, 90-day, or 3-year survival after MIS or OS for colorectal cancer.

•

No reduction in postoperative complications with epidural analgesia.

•

No reduction in short-term mortality with epidural analgesia after colorectal surgery.

•

No reduction in long-term mortality with epidural analgesia in colorectal cancer.

Thoracic Epidural Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Management in Liver Transplantation: A 10-year Study on 685 Liver Transplant Recipients

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is not widely used for postoperative pain management in liver transplantation due to hepatic coagulopathy-related increased risk of inducing an epidural hematoma. However, an increasing number of patients are transplanted for other indications than the end-stage liver disease and without coagulopathy allowing insertion of an epidural catheter.

Epidural analgesia for postoperative pain: Improving outcomes or adding risks?

Current evidence shows that the benefits of epidural analgesia (EA) are not as impressive as believed in the past, while the risks of adverse effects and serious complications are greater than previously estimated. There are many reasons for the decreasing role of epidural technique in clinical practice (table). Indeed, EA can cause harm and hinder early mobilization in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes. Some ERAS interventions are complex, confusing, sometimes contradictory and apparently unimplementable. In spite of much hype and after almost 25 years, the originator of the concept has described the current status of ERAS as 'far from good'. Outpatient surgery setup has been a remarkable success for many major surgical procedures, and it predates ERAS and appears to be a simpler and better model for reducing postoperative morbidity and hospitalization times. Systematic reviews of comparative studies have shown that less invasive and safer but equally effective alternatives to EA are available for almost all major surgical procedures. These include: paravertebral block, peripheral nerve blocks, catheter wound infusion, periarticular local infiltration analgesia, preperitoneal catheters and transversus abdominis plane block. Increasingly, these non-EA methods are being used as surgeon-delivered regional analgesia (RA) techniques. This encouraging trend of active surgeon participation, with anaesthesiologist collaboration, will undoubtedly improve the decades-old twin problems of underused RA techniques and undertreated postoperative pain. The continued use of EA at any institution can only be justified by results from its own audits; however, regrettably only very few institutions perform such regular audits.

Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications.

Objective

To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol.

Interventions

Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution.

Results

Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.

Continuous wound infiltration versus epidural analgesia for midline abdominal incisions - a randomized-controlled pilot trial (Painless-Pilot trial; DRKS Number: DRKS00008023)

OBJECTIVES

To test the feasibility of a randomized controlled study design comparing epidural analgesia (EDA) with continuous wound infiltration (CWI) in respect to postoperative complications and mobility to design a future multicentre randomized controlled trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

CWI has been developed to address drawbacks of EDA. Previous studies have established the equivalent analgesic potential of CWI compared to EDA. This is a single centre, non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial at a tertiary surgical centre. Patients undergoing elective non-colorectal surgery via a midline laparotomy were randomized to EDA or CWI. Endpoints included recruitment, feasibility of assessing postoperative mobility with a pedometer and morbidity. No primary endpoint was defined and all analyses were explorative.

INTERVENTIONS

CWI with local anaesthetics (experimental group) vs. thoracic EDA (control).

RESULTS

Of 846 patients screened within 14 months, 71 were randomized and 62 (31 per group) included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Mobility was assessed in 44 of 62 patients and revealed no differences within the first 3 postoperative days. Overall morbidity did not differ between the two groups (measured via the comprehensive complication index). Median pain scores at rest were comparable between the two groups, while EDA was superior in pain treatment during movement on the first, but not on the second and third postoperative day. Duration of preoperative induction of anaesthesia was shorter with CWI than with EDA. Of 17 serious adverse events, 3 were potentially related to EDA, while none was related to CWI.

CONCLUSION

This trial confirmed the feasibility of a randomized trial design to compare CWI and EDA regarding morbidity. Improvements in the education and training of team members are necessary to improve recruitment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00008023.

Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial)

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.

METHODS

This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1-3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0-3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0-3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects.

DISCUSSION

In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019.

A Quality Improvement Project to Determine the Effect of Aromatherapy on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in a Short-Stay Surgical Population

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major concern for short-stay surgical patients because it can delay discharge and cause preventable postoperative complications, which in turn can increase hospital costs. Evidence suggests that aromatherapy effectively reduces PONV, either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with pharmacologic antiemetics. This quality improvement project investigated the effectiveness of aromatherapy in reducing PONV in a short-stay surgical population. The outcome of this project supported the hypothesis that the administration of blended aromatherapy would result in a significant decrease in patients' self-reported ratings of nausea. This finding suggests that aromatherapy is an appropriate adjunct therapy for decreasing patient nausea and vomiting in this short-stay surgical unit and may help prevent discharge delays in this population.

Post-Pancreaticoduodenectomy Outcomes and Epidural Analgesia: A 5-year Single-Institution Experience

BACKGROUND

Optimal pain control post pancreaticoduodenectomy is a challenge. Epidural analgesia (EDA) is used increasingly, despite inherent risks and unclear effects on outcomes.

METHODS

All pancreaticoduodenectomies (PDs) performed from January 2013 through December 2017 were included. Clinical parameters were obtained from a retrospective review of a prospective clinical database, the American College of Surgeons NSQIP prospective institutional database, and medical record review. Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and independent-samples t-tests were used for univariable analyses. Multivariable regression was performed.

RESULTS

Six hundred and seventy-one consecutive PDs from a single institution were included (429 EDA, 242 non-EDA). On univariable analysis, EDA patients experienced significantly less wound disruption (0.2% vs 2.1%), unplanned intubation (3.0% vs 7.9%), pulmonary embolism (0.5% vs 2.5%), mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hours (2.1% vs 7.9%), septic shock (2.6% vs 5.8%), and lower pain scores. On multivariable regression (accounting for baseline group differences (ie sex, hypertension, preoperative transfusion, laboratory results, approach, and pancreatic duct size), EDA was associated with less superficial wound infections (odds ratio [OR] 0.34; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83; p = 0.017), unplanned intubations (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.88; p = 0.024), mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hours (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; p = 0.004), and septic shock (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; p = 0.050). Epidural analgesia improved pain scores post-PD days 1 to 3 (p < 0.001). No differences were seen in cardiac or renal complications; pancreatic fistula (B+C) or delayed gastric emptying, 30-/90-day mortality, length of stay, readmission, discharge destination, or unplanned reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the largest single-institution series published to date, our data support the use of EDA for optimization of pain control. More importantly, our data document that EDA improved infectious and pulmonary complications significantly.

Epidural Against Systemic Analgesia: An International Registry Analysis on Postoperative Pain and Related Perceptions After Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The PAIN OUT registry collected data from >30,000 patients on pain on the first postoperative day in hospitals worldwide. Utilizing the database, we compared systemic and epidural analgesia (EA) on postoperative pain and related side-effects in patients after abdominal surgeries (ASs).

METHODS

ASs were identified through the ICD9-Code and subgrouped into laparoscopic surgery and open surgery. After identifying patients in this subset with and without EA, propensity-score matching was performed on the basis of demographics and comorbidities. Primary outcomes were different qualities of pain, and secondary outcomes were pain-related sensations and treatment-related side effects measured with the numeric rating scale. They were calculated as the risk ratio (RR) using the median as the divisor.

RESULTS

The database contained 29,108 cases, with 5365 AS, and 646 cases remained after matching. A risk analysis revealed that for the AS group, EA posed a significantly lower risk for the perception of worst pain (RR, 0.75; confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.87), least pain (RR, 0.61; CI, 0.5-0.75), time in severe pain (RR, 0.61; CI, 0.5-0.75), in-bed activity interference of pain (RR, 0.71; CI, 0.59-0.85), pain interference with coughing (RR, 0.68; CI, 0.57-0.82) or sleeping (RR, 0.73; CI, 0.61-0.87), and a higher chance of pain relief (RR, 1.5; CI, 1.23-1.83). The risk for itchiness (RR, 2.23; CI, 1.62-3.07) appeared to be higher, as did the probability of satisfaction (RR, 1.25; CI, 1.03-1.51). The risk for feeling helpless (RR, 0.83; CI, 0.7-0.99) and drowsiness (RR, 0.74; CI, 0.63-0.88) was reduced. Both subgroups showed similar tendencies.

DISCUSSION

Regarding the pain intensity, satisfaction, and relatable side-effects, EA seems to be superior compared with systemic analgesia after AS.

Comparison of Epidural or Regional Analgesia and Patient-controlled Analgesia: A Critical Analysis of Patient Data by the Acute Pain Service in a University Hospital

OBJECTIVES

A large number of patients still experience pain after surgery. This study investigates if epidural or regional analgesia (continuous infusion peripheral nerve blocks [CPNB]) provide superior pain relief compared with patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) and identifies the incidence of minor and major adverse effects or complications of these techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data of postoperative patients from an online data registration system of a special dedicated nurse-based acute pain service were analyzed. The acute pain service consultations were documented from January 2008 to August 2013 in a university hospital in The Netherlands.

RESULTS

An analysis was applied on data of 12,399 consecutive patients. Results showed that patients who received epidural analgesia and CPNB reported lower pain scores than those who received PCIA, after undergoing the same procedures. In addition, pain scores at rest were significantly lower than movement-evoked pain scores, in abdominal surgery. Severe nausea was mostly observed in patients with PCIA and itching was most common in patients with epidural analgesia. Opioid-induced respiratory depression was found in 5 patients with PCIA.

DISCUSSION

Epidural analgesia and CPNB provide better pain relief to patients than PCIA, especially in dynamic pain scores of patients. Evaluating real patient data on every patient visit is important for further improvement of the quality of postoperative pain management. Pain scores may vary widely between patients with similar surgical procedures. Therefore, we recommend that future research focuses on personalized pain measurement and pain management, to improve clinical practice more intensely.

No benefit of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane blocks over wound infiltration with local anaesthetic in elective laparoscopic colonic surgery: results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial

AIM

Advances in laparoscopic techniques combined with enhanced recovery pathways have led to faster recuperation and discharge after colorectal surgery. Peripheral nerve blockade using transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks reduce opioid requirements and provide better analgesia for laparoscopic colectomies than do inactive controls. This double-blind randomized study was performed to compare TAP blocks using bupivacaine with standardized wound infiltration with local anaesthetic (LA).

METHOD

Seventy-one patients were randomized to receive either TAP block or wound infiltration. The TAP blocks were performed by experienced anaesthetists who used ultrasound guidance to deliver 40 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine post-induction into the transverse abdominis plane. In the control group, 40 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine was injected around the trocar and the extraction site by the surgeon. Both groups received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine. Patients and nursing staff assessed pain scores 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. The primary outcome was overall morphine use in the first 48 h.

RESULTS

Of the 71 patients, 20 underwent a right hemicolectomy and 51 a high anterior resection. The modified intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differences in overall morphine use [47.3 (36.2-58.5) mg vs 46.7 (36.2-57.3) mg; mean (95% CI), P = 0.8663] in the first 48 h. Pain scores were similar at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h. No differences were found regarding time to mobilization, resumption of diet and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

In elective laparoscopic colectomies, standardized wound infiltration with LA has the same analgesic effect as TAP blocks post-induction using bupivacaine at 48 h.

Clinical benefits, referral practice and cost implications of an in-hospital pain service: results of a service evaluation in a London teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

In-hospital pain services (IPS) are commonplace, but evidence of efficacy is inadequate, and patients' pain management in any hospital ward remains problematic. This service evaluation aimed to measure the effect of a contemporary IPS, its appropriate use and cost-efficacy.

METHODS

Records of 249 adults reviewed by the IPS in an inner London Teaching Hospital over an 8-month period were analysed for demographic data, interventions, workload and change in pain intensity measured by numerical rating scale (NRS). Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate differences between initial and final NRS. Spearman's rank correlation analysis was used to create a correlation matrix to evaluate associations between all identified independent variables with the change in NRS. All strongly correlated variables (ρ > 0.5) were subsequently included in a binary logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of pain resolution greater than 50% NRS and improvement rather than deterioration or no change in NRS. Finally, referral practice and cost of inappropriate referrals were estimated. Referrals were thought to be inappropriate when pain was not optimised by the referring team; they were identified using a set algorithm.

RESULTS

Initial median NRS and final median NRS were significantly different when a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to the whole cohort; Z = -5.5 (p = 0.000). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the 'mild' pain group; z = -1.1 (p = 0.253). Regression analysis showed that for every unit increase in initial NRS, there was a 62% chance of general and a 33% chance of >50% improvement in final NRS. An estimated annual cost-saving potential of £1546 to £4558 was found in inappropriate referrals and patients experiencing no benefit from the service.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that patients with moderate to severe pain benefit most from IPS input. Also pain management resources are often distributed inefficiently. Future research is required to develop algorithms for easy identification of potential treatment responders.

Perioperative regional anaesthesia and postoperative longer-term outcomes

Regional anaesthesia provides effective anaesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting. Central neuraxial blocks-that is, spinal and epidural blocks-are well established as an alternative or adjunct to general anaesthesia. Peripheral blocks may be used as part of multimodal anaesthesia/analgesia in perioperative practice, reducing the need for opioid analgesics and enhancing early recovery. Furthermore, regional anaesthesia has increased in popularity and may be done with improved ease and safety with the introduction of ultrasound-guided techniques. The effects of local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia on long-term outcomes such as morbidity, mortality, the quality of recovery beyond the duration of analgesia, and whether it can expedite the resumption of activities of daily living are less clear. It has also been suggested that regional anaesthesia may impact the risk of metastasis after cancer surgery. This article provides an overview of current evidence around quality of recovery, risk for delirium, long-term effects, and possible impact on cancer disease progression associated with the clinical use of local and regional anaesthetic techniques. In summary, there is still a lack of robust data that regional anaesthesia has a clinical impact beyond its well-acknowledged beneficial effects of reducing pain, reduced opioid consumption, and improved quality of early recovery. Further high-quality prospective studies on long-term outcomes are warranted.

A Clinical Comparison of Intravenous and Epidural Local Anesthetic for Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia provides good pain control after many postoperative procedures, but it can lead to complications, has some contraindications, and occasionally fails. Intravenous lidocaine infusion has been suggested as an alternative. We assessed, in our clinical practice, the effects of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared with epidural analgesia for major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had received intravenous lidocaine (1 mg/kg per hour) perioperatively after a major abdominal surgery. We matched them with patients who had received epidural analgesia. We tested a joint hypothesis of noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. We assigned a noninferiority margin of 1 point (on an 11-point numerical rating scale) difference in pain and a ratio [mean (lidocaine) / mean (epidural)] of 1.2 in opioid consumption, respectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen patients (108 in each group) were analyzed. Intravenous lidocaine was not inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to pain scores. Lidocaine infusion was inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to opioid consumption. Patients in the lidocaine group had fewer episodes of hypotension and less postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention. Patients receiving lidocaine also had earlier urinary catheter removal and earlier first gastrointestinal function. Daily mental status assessment was similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received systemic lidocaine infusions with the addition of PRN (as needed) opioids administered for breakthrough pain did not have clinically significant differences in pain scores on postoperative day 2 and beyond. Intravenous lidocaine infusion in major abdominal surgery was inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to opioid consumption. However, lidocaine was associated with improvements in several important aspects of recovery.

Nationwide incidence of serious complications of epidural analgesia in the United States

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the incidence and risk factors of in-hospital spinal hematoma and abscess associated with epidural analgesia in adult obstetric and non-obstetric populations in the United States.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was analyzed to identify patients receiving epidural analgesia from 1998 to 2010. Primary outcomes were incidence of spinal hematoma and epidural abscess. Use of decompressive laminectomy was also investigated. Regression analyses were conducted to assess predictors of epidural analgesia complications. Differences in mortality and disposition of patients at discharge were compared in patients with and without neuraxial complications. Obstetric and non-obstetric patients were studied separately.

RESULTS

A total of 3,703,755 epidural analgesia procedures (2,320,950 obstetric and 1,382,805 non-obstetric) were identified. In obstetric patients, the incidence of spinal hematoma was 0.6 per 100,000 epidural catheterizations (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.0 × 10(-5) ). The incidence of epidural abscess was zero. In non-obstetric patients, the incidence of spinal hematoma and epidural abscess were, respectively, 18.5 per 100,000 (95% CI, 16.3 to 20.9 × 10(-5) ) and 7.2 per 100,000 (95% CI, 5.8 to 8.7 × 10(-5) ) catheterizations. Predictors of spinal hematoma included type of surgical procedure (higher in vascular surgery), teaching status of hospital, and comorbidity score. Patients with spinal complications had higher in-hospital mortality (12.2% vs. 1.1%, P < 0.0001) and were significantly less likely to be discharged to home.

CONCLUSIONS

This large nationwide data analysis reveals that the incidence of epidural analgesia-related complications is very low in obstetric population epidural analgesia and much higher in patients having vascular surgery.

Intravenous versus epidural analgesia to reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal complications after elective pancreatoduodenectomy (the PAKMAN trial, DRKS 00007784): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Despite substantial improvements in surgical and anesthesiological practices leading to decreased mortality of less than 5 % at high-volume centers, pancreatic surgery is still associated with high morbidity rates of up to 50 %. Attention is increasingly directed toward the optimization of perioperative management to reduce complications and enhance postoperative recovery. Currently, two different strategies for postoperative pain management after pancreatoduodenectomy are being routinely used: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia and thoracic epidural analgesia. Evidence is lacking to assess which strategy entails fewer postoperative complications.

Methods/design

The PAKMAN trial is designed as an adaptive, pragmatic, randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label, superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 370 patients scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy will be randomized after giving written informed consent, and 278 patients are needed for analysis. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification ≥ IV, or chronic pain syndrome will be excluded. The group A intervention includes intraoperative general anesthesia and postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia; the group B intervention comprises combined intraoperative general anesthesia and epidural analgesia with postoperative epidural analgesia. The primary endpoint of this trial is a composite of the gastrointestinal complications (delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, biliary leak, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative ileus) up to postoperative day 30. The aim is to investigate whether the frequency of gastrointestinal complications following pancreatoduodenectomy can be reduced by 15 % using postoperative, patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with epidural analgesia.

Discussion

Several previous studies investigating the two different strategies for postoperative pain management have mainly focused on their effectiveness in pain control. However, the PAKMAN trial is the first to compare them with regard to their impact on the surgical endpoint “postoperative gastrointestinal complications” after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00007784

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1306-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Local Anesthetic-Induced Neurotoxicity

This review summarizes current knowledge concerning incidence, risk factors, and mechanisms of perioperative nerve injury, with focus on local anesthetic-induced neurotoxicity. Perioperative nerve injury is a complex phenomenon and can be caused by a number of clinical factors. Anesthetic risk factors for perioperative nerve injury include regional block technique, patient risk factors, and local anesthetic-induced neurotoxicity. Surgery can lead to nerve damage by use of tourniquets or by direct mechanical stress on nerves, such as traction, transection, compression, contusion, ischemia, and stretching. Current literature suggests that the majority of perioperative nerve injuries are unrelated to regional anesthesia. Besides the blockade of sodium channels which is responsible for the anesthetic effect, systemic local anesthetics can have a positive influence on the inflammatory response and the hemostatic system in the perioperative period. However, next to these beneficial effects, local anesthetics exhibit time and dose-dependent toxicity to a variety of tissues, including nerves. There is equivocal experimental evidence that the toxicity varies among local anesthetics. Even though the precise order of events during local anesthetic-induced neurotoxicity is not clear, possible cellular mechanisms have been identified. These include the intrinsic caspase-pathway, PI3K-pathway, and MAPK-pathways. Further research will need to determine whether these pathways are non-specifically activated by local anesthetics, or whether there is a single common precipitating factor.

Neuraxial block and postoperative epidural analgesia: effects on outcomes in the POISE-2 trial†

BACKGROUND

We assessed associations between intraoperative neuraxial block and postoperative epidural analgesia, and a composite primary outcome of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction, at 30 days post-randomization in POISE-2 Trial subjects.

METHODS

10 010 high-risk noncardiac surgical patients were randomized aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. Neuraxial block was defined as intraoperative spinal anaesthesia, or thoracic or lumbar epidural anaesthesia. Postoperative epidural analgesia was defined as postoperative epidural local anaesthetic and/or opioid administration. We used logistic regression with weighting using estimated propensity scores.

RESULTS

Neuraxial block was not associated with the primary outcome [7.5% vs 6.5%; odds ratio (OR), 0.89; 95% CI (confidence interval), 0.73-1.08; P=0.24], death (1.0% vs 1.4%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.53-1.35; P=0.48), myocardial infarction (6.9% vs 5.5%; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.12; P=0.36) or stroke (0.3% vs 0.4%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.44-2.49; P=0.91). Neuraxial block was associated with less clinically important hypotension (39% vs 46%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; P=0.04). Postoperative epidural analgesia was not associated with the primary outcome (11.8% vs 6.2%; OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.89-2.48; P=0.13), death (1.3% vs 0.8%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.35-1.99; P=0.68], myocardial infarction (11.0% vs 5.7%; OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.90-2.61; P=0.11], stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%; OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.18-2.32; P=0.50] or clinically important hypotension (63% vs 36%; OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.09; P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Neuraxial block and postoperative epidural analgesia were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes among POISE-2 subjects.