Postoperative epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesia for thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children

Regional Anesthesia Techniques in Modern Neuroanesthesia Practice: A Narrative Review of the Clinical Evidence

Neurosurgical procedures are often associated with significant postoperative pain that is both underrecognized and undertreated. Given the potentially undesirable side effects associated with general anesthesia and with various pharmacological analgesic regimens, regional anesthetic techniques have gained in popularity as alternatives for providing both anesthesia and analgesia for the neurosurgical patient. The aim of this narrative review is to present an overview of the regional techniques that have been incorporated and continue to be incorporated into modern neuroanesthesia practice, presenting in a comprehensive way the evidence, where available, in support of such practice for the neurosurgical patient.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and opioids as local anesthetic adjuvants in patient controlled epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on the efficacy and incidence of adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine (DEX) as a local anesthetic adjuvant for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) are inconclusive. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and risks of DEX for PCEA using opioids as a reference.

METHODS

Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China Biology Medicine for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX and opioids as local anesthetic adjuvants in PCEA.

RESULTS

In total, 636 patients from seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Postoperative patients who received DEX had lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores than those who received opioids at 4-8 h (mean difference [MD]: 0.61, 95% CI [0.45, 0.76], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 12 h (MD: 0.85, 95% CI [0.61, 1.09], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 24 h (MD: 0.59, 95% CI [0.06, 1.12], P = 0.030, I2 = 82%), and 48 h (MD: 0.54, 95% CI [0.05, 1.02], P = 0.030, I2 = 91%). Additionally, patients who received DEX had a lower incidence of itching (odds ratio [OR]: 2.86, 95% CI [1.18, 6.95], P = 0.020, I2 = 0%) and nausea and vomiting (OR: 6.83, 95% CI [3.63, 12.84], P < 0.001, I2 = 24%). In labor analgesia, no significant differences in neonatal (pH and PaO2 of cord blood, fetal heart rate) or maternal outcomes (duration of labor stage, mode of delivery) were found between the DEX and opioid groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with opioids, using DEX as a local anesthetic adjuvant in PCEA improved postoperative analgesia and reduced the incidence of itching and nausea and vomiting without increasing the incidence of adverse events.

Impact of preoperative insomnia on poor postoperative pain control after elective spine surgery and the modified Calgary postoperative pain after spine surgery (MCAPPS) score

Background

Approximately 30% to 64% of patients experience inadequate pain control following spine surgery. The Calgary postoperative pain after spine surgery (CAPPS) score was developed to identify this subset of patients. The impact of preoperative insomnia on postoperative pain control is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between preoperative insomnia and poor pain control after spine surgery, as well as improve the predictive accuracy of the CAPPS score.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted in patients undergoing elective spine surgery. Poor pain control was defined as a mean numeric rating scale pain score >4 at rest within the first 24-hours after surgery. Patients were evaluated using the CAPPS score, which included 7 prognostic factors. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to examine the association between preoperative insomnia severity index (ISI) and poor pain control, adjusting for the CAPPS score. The Modified CAPPS score was derived from this model.

Results

Of 219 patients, 49.7% experienced poorly controlled pain. Prevalence of clinical insomnia (ISI≥15) was 26.9%. Preoperative ISI was independently associated with poor pain control (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, [95%CI=1.03-1.16], p=.004), after adjusting for the CAPPS score (OR 1.61, [95%CI=1.38-1.89], p<.001). The model exhibited good discrimination (c-statistics 0.80, [95%CI=0.74-0.86]) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square=8.95, p=.35). The Modified CAPPS score also demonstrated good discrimination (c-statistic 0.78, [95%CI=0.72-0.84]) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square=2.92, p=.57). Low-, high-, and extreme-risk groups stratified by the Modified CAPPS score had 17.3%, 49.1%, and 80.7% predicted probability of experiencing inadequate pain control compared to 32.0%, 64.0%, and 85.1% in the CAPPS score.

Conclusions

Preoperative insomnia is prevalent and is a modifiable risk factor for poor pain control following spine surgery. Early identification and management of preoperative insomnia may lead to improved postoperative pain outcomes. Future external validation is needed to confirm the accuracy of the Modified CAPPS score.

Pain management with epidural catheter and epidural analgesia after spinal dorsal instrumentation of lumbar spine

Spinal dorsal instrumentation (SDI) is an established treatment for degenerative spinal diseases. Adequate and immediate postoperative pain control is important for patient recovery and may be compromised by uncertainty about its efficacy and concern about early postoperative surgical complications or adverse events. The aim of the current study was to compare the use of epidural analgesia (EA) with systemic analgesia (SA) as regards pain reduction and early postoperative complications after SDI. Pain management with epidural or systemic analgesia in patients undergoing SDI by posterior approach between January 2019 and July 2020 was evaluated by clinical functional testing, measuring total opioid amounts used, and evaluating numerical rating scale values 24 and 96 hours postoperatively. The following were also monitored: demographic data, number of affected segments, length of hospital stay, inflammatory markers (leukocytes and serum C-reactive protein), early postoperative surgical complication rates, and adverse events. In total 79 patients were included (33 in the EA and 46 in the SA group). The SA group had significantly lower numerical rating scale values at days 1 to 4 after surgery (P ≤ .001) and lower cumulative opioid use than the EA group (P < .001). We found no difference in infection parameters, length of hospital stay or surgery-related complication rates. Our data demonstrate that epidural anesthesia was inferior to an opioid-based SA regime in reducing postoperative pain in patients undergoing spinal surgery. There is no benefit to the use of epidural catheters.

Use of Epidural Analgesia in Children With Neuromuscular Conditions Following Hip Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular conditions, such as cerebral palsy, are the most common motor disabilities in the pediatric population. Children with these conditions frequently have accompanying hip deformities that require pelvic and femur osteotomy to correct the spastic hip dislocations. However, postoperative pain management remains an elusive and challenging problem. The purpose of this study was to determine whether postoperative use of epidural analgesia in patients with neuromuscular conditions provided similar outcomes with regard to pain scores, length of stay, duration of foley placement, duration of pain control, and complications as compared to traditional pain management regimens. To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the use of epidural analgesia to conventional pain relief modalities following hip reconstruction in patients with neuromuscular conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using records of pediatric patients with neuromuscular conditions treated at our tertiary care center between January 2009 and December 2019. Patients with neuromuscular conditions treated with epidural or non-epidural analgesia for pain relief following unilateral or bilateral proximal femoral osteotomies, pelvic osteotomies, or open hip reduction were eligible for study inclusion. Multiple linear regression was used to determine differences in length of stay, pain score, pain modality, duration of Foley placement, and complications between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

Seventy patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. In all, 58 patients underwent unilateral procedures, of which 30 (52%) received epidural analgesia, and 28 (48%) received non-epidural pain control modalities. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar among the cohort, except for BMI, which varied slightly. Average pain scores and pain control duration were not statistically different between the pain control modalities. After controlling for demographics, procedure, and immobilization type, the epidural group experienced significantly increased length of stay (+3.18 days, P=0.032) and duration of Foley placement (+1.04 days, P=.013). Complication rates between the two groups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of epidural analgesia in children with neuromuscular conditions was associated with comparable pain scores, despite the increased length of stay and duration of Foley placement. No statistically significant difference in complication rates was observed between patients receiving epidural anesthesia and those receiving traditional pain modalities.

The Current Perspectives in Clinical Research: Computer-Assisted Drug Designing, Ethics, and Good Clinical Practice

In the era of emerging microbial and non-communicable diseases and re-emerging microbial infections, the medical fraternity and the public are plagued by under-preparedness. It is evident by the severity of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic that novel microbial diseases are a challenge and are challenging to control. This is mainly attributed to the lack of complete knowledge of the novel microbe’s biology and pathogenesis and the unavailability of therapeutic drugs and vaccines to treat and control the disease. Clinical research is the only answer utilizing which can handle most of these circumstances. In this review, we highlight the importance of computer-assisted drug designing (CADD) and the aspects of molecular docking, molecular superimposition, 3D-pharmacophore technology, ethics, and good clinical practice (GCP) for the development of therapeutic drugs, devices, and vaccines.

Perioperative management in complex spine surgery: a narrative review

The last two decades have seen a significant increase in the number of spine surgical procedures performed worldwide. This type of surgery includes a wide variety of procedures, from mini-invasive discectomies to multi-level spinal arthrodesis and osteotomies. Moreover, different surgical approaches are described at different spine levels: the anesthesiologist should be aware of the potential benefits and risks for the patients and be prepared for their management. In this narrative review we seek to describe basic concepts of perioperative spine care and address evolving areas in which care is changing. We will discuss preoperative concerns, intraoperative management including airway management, choice of maintenance, intraoperative neuromonitoring and anesthetic effect, blood management and the dynamic topic of anesthetic and analgesic techniques. Finally, we will briefly address the issue of perioperative complications as they relate specifically to spine surgery.

Bowel dysfunction after elective spinal surgery: etiology, diagnostics and management based on the medical literature and experience in a university hospital

BACKGROUND

Bowel dysfunction after spinal surgery is often underestimated and if not treated in a timely manner can lead to undesirable surgical interventions or fatal complications. The current medical literature primarily focuses on bowel dysfunction as a result of spinal injury.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to explore this topic in evaluating current evidence regarding the causes of acute bowel dysfunction after elective spinal surgery, primarily the thoracolumbar spine. Since available evidence for recommendations of treatment is scarce, an interdisciplinary management approach for treatment of bowel dysfunction following spinal surgery is also formulated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An extensive literature search was carried out on PubMed. Keywords that were used in the search included bowel dysfunction, obstruction, postoperative ileus, spinal surgery, spinal fusion, constipation, opioid-induced constipation, colonic pseudo-obstruction, ischemic colitis, immobility-induced bowel changes, epidural anesthesia and diet. Relevant studies were chosen and included in the review. The treatment approach used in the spine center of a university hospital was included.

RESULTS

Current research mainly focuses on investigating the nature and symptomatology of chronic bowel dysfunction after spinal cord injury. Emphasis on the acute phase of bowel dysfunction in patients after elective spinal surgery is lacking. The comorbidities that exacerbate bowel dysfunction postoperatively are well-defined. There has been refinement and expansion of the pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment that could be implemented. Enough evidence exists to provide sufficient care.

CONCLUSION

Management of acute bowel dysfunction after spinal surgery requires a comprehensive and individualized approach, encompassing comorbidities, behavioral changes, medications and surgery. Close supervision and timely treatment could minimize further complications. Research is required to identify patients who are at a higher risk of developing bowel dysfunction after specific spinal procedures.

Postoperative Pain Management in Pediatric Spinal Fusion Surgery for Idiopathic Scoliosis

This article reviews and summarizes current evidence and knowledge gaps regarding postoperative analgesia after pediatric posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, a common procedure that results in severe acute postoperative pain. Inadequate analgesia may delay recovery, cause patient dissatisfaction, and increase chronic pain risk. Despite significant adverse effects, opioids are the analgesic mainstay after scoliosis surgery. However, growing emphasis on opioid minimization and enhanced recovery has increased adoption of multimodal analgesia (MMA) regimens. While opioid adverse effects remain a concern, MMA protocols must also consider risks and benefits of adjunct medications. We discuss use of opioids via different administration routes and elaborate on the effect of MMA components on opioid/pain and recovery outcomes including upcoming regional analgesia. We also discuss risk for prolonged opioid use after surgery and chronic post-surgical pain risk in this population. Evidence supports use of neuraxial opioids at safe doses, low-dose ketorolac, and methadone for postoperative analgesia. There may be a role for low-dose ketamine in those who are opioid-tolerant or have chronic pain, but the evidence for preoperative gabapentinoids and intravenous lidocaine is currently insufficient. There is a need for further studies to evaluate pediatric-specific optimal MMA dosing regimens after scoliosis surgery. Questions remain regarding how best to prevent acute opioid tolerance, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and chronic postsurgical pain. We anticipate that this timely update will enable clinicians to develop efficient pain regimens and provide impetus for future research to optimize recovery outcomes after spine fusion.

Postoperative "Rescue" Use of Erector Spinae Plane Block After Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Report of 2 Cases

Pain after lumbar spine fusion surgery is often difficult to control in the immediate postoperative period. Historically, opioids have been the mainstay of treatment, but are associated with many unwanted side effects as well as increased hospital length of stay. The ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESP) is a relatively safe and simple regional option for the management of acute postoperative pain after spine surgery without the technical difficulty or complications noted with paravertebral injection (eg, pneumothorax, hematoma). To date, there have been reports of preoperative placement of ESP block prior to spine surgery with some success. We present a report of two cases that highlight the efficacy of the ESP block as an early postoperative “rescue” regional anesthetic technique in lumbar spine surgery. These cases demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a “rescue” use of the ESP block in patients having uncontrolled or poorly controlled pain in the early postoperative period with no evidence of significant side effects.

Postoperative epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesia for thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children

BACKGROUND

Spine surgery may be associated with severe acute postoperative pain. Compared with systemic analgesia alone, epidural analgesia may offer better pain control. However, epidural analgesia has sometimes been associated with rare but serious complications. Therefore, it is critical to quantify the real benefits of epidural analgesia over other modes of pain treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia for acute postoperative pain control after thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on 14 November 2018, together with the references lists of related reviews and retained trials, and two trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials performed in children undergoing any type of thoraco-lumbar spine surgery comparing epidural analgesia with systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. We applied no language or publication status restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane tool. We analysed data using random-effects models. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials (559 participants) in the review, and seven trials (249 participants) in the analysis: 140 participants received epidural analgesia and 109 received systemic analgesia.Most studies included adolescents. Three trials included in the analysis contained some participants older than 18 years. The types of surgery were posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis (nine trials), anterior correction for idiopathic scoliosis (one trial), or selective dorsal rhizotomy in children with cerebral palsy (one trial). The mean numbers of vertebrae operated on were between nine and 14.5 and the mean numbers of spinal levels were between three and four and a half. The length of surgery varied between three and six and a half hours.Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia reduced pain at rest at all time points. At six to eight hours, the mean pain score on a 0 to 10 scale with systemic analgesia was 3.1 (standard deviation 0.7) and with epidural analgesia was -1.32 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to -0.82; 4 studies, 116 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 72 hours, the mean pain score with epidural analgesia was equivalent to a -0.8 point reduction on a 0 to 10 scale (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.10; 5 studies, 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Return of gastrointestinal functionThere was no difference for nausea and vomiting between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.30; 6 studies, 215 participants; low-quality evidence). One study found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants who had their first flatus within 48 hours (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.47; 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants in whom first bowel movement occurred within 48 hours (RR 11.52, 95% CI 2.36 to 56.26; 60 participants; low-quality evidence). It was uncertain whether epidural analgesia reduced the time to first bowel movement (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.50; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and time to first liquid ingestion following epidural infusion of an opioid alone or a local anaesthetic plus an opioid (mean difference (MD) -5.02 hours, 95% CI -13.15 to 3.10; 2 studies, 56 participants; very low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the risk of having first solid food ingestion within 48 hours (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.91 to 25.62; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in time to ambulate (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.39; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and hospital length of stay (MD -0.29 days, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.10; 2 studies, 89 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found participants were more satisfied when treated with epidural analgesia (MD 1.62 on a scale from 0 to 10, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.97; 60 participants; very low-quality evidence). It was unclear whether there was a difference in parent satisfaction for epidural analgesia with an opioid alone (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.81 to 2.01; 1 trial, 27 participants; very low-quality evidence).ComplicationsIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in the risk of complications such as: respiratory depression (risk difference (RD) -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 4 studies, 126 participants; very low-quality evidence); wound infection (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 2 trials, 93 participants; very low-quality evidence); epidural abscess (RD 0, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 3 trials, 120 participants; very low-quality evidence); and neurological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 4 studies, 151 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate- and low-quality evidence that there may be a small additional reduction in pain up to 72 hours after surgery with epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia. Two very small studies showed epidural analgesia with local anaesthetic alone may accelerate the return of gastrointestinal function. The safety of this technique in children undergoing thoraco-lumbar surgery is uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. The study in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.