Epidural Hematoma After Epidural Blockade in the United States

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.

The analgesic efficacy of transverse abdominis plane block versus epidural analgesia: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of epidural analgesia and transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block. TAP block has gained popularity to provide postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery but its advantage over epidural analgesia is disputed.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Only trials comparing TAP block with epidural analgesia were included. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (analog scale, 0-10) on postoperative day 1 analyzed in subgroups according to the population (children and adults). Secondary outcomes included rate of hypotension, length of stay, and functional outcomes (time to first bowel sound, time to first flatus).

RESULTS

Ten controlled trials, including 505 patients (195 children and 310 adults), were identified. Pain scores at rest on postoperative day 1 were equivalent for TAP block and epidural analgesia groups in children (mean difference: 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1 to 0.6; I = 0%; P = .15) and in adults (mean difference: 0.5; 95% CI: -0.1 to 1.0; I = 81%; P = .10). The quality of evidence for our primary outcome was moderate according to the GRADE system. The epidural analgesia group experienced a higher rate of hypotension (relative risk: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.38; I = 0%; P = .0002), while hospital length of stay was shorter in the TAP block group (mean difference: -0.6 days; 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.3 days; I = 0%; P < .0001), without impact on functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate evidence that TAP block and epidural analgesia are equally effective in treating postoperative pain in both pediatric and adult patients, while TAP block is associated with fewer episodes of hypotension and reduced length of stay.

The incidence of coagulopathy in pregnant patients with intrahepatic cholestasis: should we delay or avoid neuraxial analgesia?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence of coagulopathy in patients with intrahepatic cholestasis inhepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort investigation.

SETTING

University medical center.

MEASUREMENTS

The records of 319 parturients who met study inclusion criteria were reviewed for various laboratory values. The primary outcome was the incidence of abnormal hemostasis, defined as prothrombin time (PT) greater than 14.5 seconds (INR>1.2). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage was evaluated as a secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The incidence (95% CI) of abnormal PT was 0% (0 to 1.8). Other coagulation tests [partial thromboplastin time (PTT) and platelet count] were also normal, even in study subjects with significant (>5 times) elevation of liver enzymes. The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery was 2.4% (4 of 208 pts) and 6.3% (7 of 111 pts) after Cesarean delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Coagulation abnormalities are rare in pregnant patients with ICP, even when a strict criterion is utilized (INR<1.2). The use of neuraxial anesthesia and/or analgesia may not necessarily be delayed in parturients with isolated ICP.