Epidural analgesia vs systemic opioids in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Prospective observational study comparing the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy with or without epidural anesthesia: the Kanagawa Yokohama Colorectal Cancer Study Group (KYCC) 1806

PURPOSE

There have been no adequate comparisons of the efficacy, safety, and efficiency of analgesia after laparoscopic colorectal resection (LAC), with and without epidural anesthesia (EDA).

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective observational study of patients undergoing LAC. The primary end point was the mean visual analog scale (VAS) score on postoperative days (PODs) 1-7. The secondary end points were the highest VAS, complication rate, days to first ambulation and fatigue, length of hospital stay, and time to commencement of surgery.

RESULTS

We compared an EDA group (Group E, n = 48) and a no-EDA group (Group O, n = 48) after matching. The mean VAS was not significantly different between the groups (28.7 vs. 30.1, p = 0.288). On assessing the secondary end points, the highest VAS was not significantly different between the groups. In fact, the VAS was lower in Group E only on POD 2. There was no difference in the incidence of complications, the time to first postoperative evacuation was shorter in Group E, and postoperative hospitalization was similar. The time to surgery was shorter in Group O.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that LAC without EDA is a feasible option, but with the early and regular use of adjunctive measures to provide more stable analgesia.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023484720).

Differences in the Receipt of Regional Anesthesia Based on Race and Ethnicity in Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Health equity in pain management during the perioperative period continues to be a topic of interest. The authors evaluated the association of race and ethnicity with regional anesthesia in patients who underwent colorectal surgery and characterized trends in regional anesthesia.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2015 to 2020, the research team identified patients who underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Associations between race and ethnicity and use of regional anesthesia were estimated using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The final sample size was 292,797, of which 15.6% (n = 45,784) received regional anesthesia. The unadjusted rates of regional anesthesia for race and ethnicity were 15.7% white, 15.1% Black, 12.8% Asian, 29.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, 16.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 12.4% Hispanic. Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.96, p < 0.001) and Asian (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.80, p < 0.001) patients had lower odds of regional anesthesia compared to white patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of regional anesthesia compared to non-Hispanic patients (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.75, p < 0.001). There was a significant annual increase in regional anesthesia from 2015 to 2020 for all racial and ethnic cohorts (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There was an annual increase in the use of regional anesthesia, yet Black and Asian patients (compared to whites) and Hispanics (compared to non-Hispanics) were less likely to receive regional anesthesia for colorectal surgery. These differences suggest that there are racial and ethnic differences in regional anesthesia use for colorectal surgery.

[The "Big Five" of Invasiveness - the Usefulness of Drains, Probes and Catheters in Colorectal Surgery]

The perioperative management of colorectal resections is often dominated by traditional procedures and a strong focus on safety. Evidence-based measures such as those established in Fast Track or ERAS programs, are rarely applied in a standardised manner. As part of elective colorectal surgery, many patients therefore continue to routinely receive central venous access, peridural catheters, urinary catheters, drains and/or gastric tubes ("Big Five" of invasiveness). This article presents the currently available evidence on these measures in colorectal surgery. In addition, results relating to the "Big Five" from the author's own centre are presented. This review shows that the "Big Five" of invasiveness are clinically unnecessary or supported by evidence. In addition, they often impair the patient's function.

Necessity of routine perioperative epidural catheter placement in laparoscopic colorectal resections: a retrospective data analysis

PURPOSE

Whether epidural anesthesia leads to further improvement in the postoperative course of colorectal procedures is under discussion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of minimally invasive colorectal oncological interventions without epidural anesthesia (EDA).

METHODS

This retrospective data analysis included the clinical data of all patients who underwent minimally invasive oncological colorectal resection at our clinic between January 2013 and April 2019. Of 385 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 183 (group I; 47.5% of 385) received EDA, and 202 (group II; 52.5% of 385) received transversus abdominis plane block instead. The relevant target parameters were evaluated and compared between the groups. The postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

The patients in group I (n=183; women, 77; men, 106; age 66.8 years) were younger (p=0.0035), received a urinary catheter more often (99.5% versus [vs.] 28.2% p<0.001), required longer, more frequent arterenol treatment (1.1 vs. 0.6 days; p<0.001), and had a longer intermediate care unit stay than those in group II (2.8 vs. 1.1 days; p<0.001). Postoperative pain levels were not significantly different between the groups (p=0.078). The patients in group I were able to ambulate later than those in group II (4 vs. 2 days; p<0.001). The difference in the postoperative day of the first defecation was not significant between the groups (p=0.236). The incidence of postoperative complications such as bleeding (p=0.396), anastomotic leaks (p=0.113), and wound infections (p=0.641) did not differ between the groups. The patients in group I had significantly longer hospital stays than those in group II (12.2 vs. 9.4 days; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

EDA can be safely omitted from elective minimally invasive colorectal resections, and its omission is not accompanied by any relevant disadvantages to the patient.

Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice

The use of routinely collected health data (real-world data, RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for research purposes is a growing field. Computerized search methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel statistical methods allow for valid analysis of data outside its primary clinical purpose. Here, we systematically reviewed the methodology used for RWE studies in pain research. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for studies using retrospective data sources comparing multiple groups or treatments. The protocol was registered under the DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/KGVRM. A total of 65 studies were included. Of those, only 4 compared pharmacological interventions, whereas 49 investigated differences in surgical procedures, with the remaining studying alternative or psychological interventions or epidemiological factors. Most 39 studies reported significant results in their primary comparison, and an additional 12 reported comparable effectiveness. Fifty-eight studies used propensity scores to account for group differences, 38 of them using 1:1 case:control matching. Only 17 of 65 studies provided sensitivity analyses to show robustness of their findings, and only 4 studies provided links to publicly accessible protocols. RWE is a relevant construct that can provide evidence complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. The high proportion of studies reporting significant differences between groups or comparable effectiveness could imply a relevant degree of publication bias. RWD provides a potentially important resource to expand high-quality evidence beyond clinical trials, but rigorous quality standards need to be set to maximize the validity of RWE studies.

Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is an invasive technique with potential side effects but is widely used in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes in colorectal cancer surgery. The effects of TEA on postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS) or morbidity is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to evaluate the postoperative analgesic effectiveness of TEA compared with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and whether TEA contributes to enhanced recovery.

DESIGN

A retrospective single-centre, observational study.

SETTING

Dutch tertiary-care university hospital.

PATIENTS

All consecutive adult patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016, with ASA status I-IV, were included. Exclusion criteria were hypersensitivity to opioid or local anaesthetic substances, or the use of multiple secondary anaesthetic techniques.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome, postoperative pain assessed with a Numeric Rating Scale on postoperative days 1 to 3 inclusive. Secondary endpoints were LOS, the incidence of epidural related side effects, major complications and the 5-year survival rate. Using linear mixed models, pain scores were compared between patients who received TEA and PCIA.

RESULTS

Of 422 enrolled patients, 110 (32%) received TEA and 234 (68%) PCIA. Patients in the TEA group had lower pain scores: estimated NRS difference at rest; -0.79; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.49; P < 0.001 and during movement -1.06; 95% CI, -1.39 to -0.73; P < 0.001. LOS, 30-day complication rate and overall survival at 5 years did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TEA in open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with moderately better postoperative pain control but does not affect LOS, postoperative morbidity, mortality nor long-term survival. The current clinical indication for TEA in colorectal surgery remains unchanged.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN11426678; retrospectively registered 26 February 2021.

Laparoscopic rectal resection without epidural catheters-does it work?

PURPOSE

Placement of an epidural catheter (EC) in colorectal resections is still recommended as a valid measure to achieve a low level of pain. However, EC is associated with increased invasiveness and with an increased risk of bladder emptying disorders and a decrease in blood pressure, which all relate to delayed mobilization. Preliminary data shows that EC placement may not be necessary for laparoscopic colon resections. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate how the omission of EC placement influences short-term postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic rectal resections.

METHODS

All laparoscopic rectal resections occurring between 2013 and 2020 were prospectively examined. Resections from January 2013 to February 2018 (group A) were compared with resections from March 2018 to December 2020 (group B; after the internal change of the perioperative pain regime). In addition to EC placement, the other target parameters of our study were urinary catheter placement during the inpatient stay, postoperative pain > 3 days on a numerical rating scale (NRS), mobilization in the first 5 postoperative days, time until the first postoperative bowel movement, postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo, intermediate care unit stay (IMC stay) in days, and hospital length of stay in days.

RESULTS

In the entire study period, 221 laparoscopic rectal resections were performed: 122 in group A and 99 resections in group B. The frequency of EC placement and urinary catheter placement, postoperative IMC stay, and hospital length of stay was significantly lower in group B (p < 0.05). The postoperative mobilization of patients in group B was possible more quickly. There were no differences in the level of pain, time until the first postoperative bowel movement, and postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo.

CONCLUSION

Omission of EC placement in laparoscopic rectal resections led to faster mobilization, a shorter IMC stay, and a shorter hospital stay without increasing the pain level. Postoperative complications did not change when an EC was not placed. Therefore, routine EC placement in laparoscopic rectal resections is unnecessary.

Evaluation of analgesic effects and hemodynamic responses of epidural ropivacaine in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries: Randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims:

The role of epidural analgesia in laparoscopic surgeries remains controversial. We evaluated intraoperative analgesic effects of epidural ropivacaine versus intravenous fentanyl in laparoscopic abdominal surgery and assessed postoperative analgesic requirements, hemodynamic changes, time to ambulation, and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU.

Material and Methods:

Seventy-two American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–III adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominal surgeries were randomized to either 0.5 mg/kg/h intravenous fentanyl (Group C) or 0.2% epidural ropivacaine at 5–8 mL/h (Group E) infusions intraoperatively and 0.25 m/kg/h fentanyl and 0.1% epidural ropivacaine infusions respectively postoperatively. Variations in mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 20% from baseline were points of intervention for propofol and analgesia with fentanyl or vasopressors. The number of interventions and total doses of fentanyl and vasopressors were noted. Postoperative analgesia was assessed at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h and when pain was reported with numerical rating scale and objective pain scores. Chi-square test and Student’s t-test were used for categorical and continuous variable analysis.

Results:

Intraoperatively, 14 patients versus 4 needed additional fentanyl and 26 versus 14 needed additional propofol in groups C and E respectively (P = 0.007, P = 0.004). MAP at 0, 6 and 18 h was lower in Group E. Pain scores were better in Group E at 6,18, and 24 h postoperatively. Time to ambulation was comparable but LOS ICU was prolonged in Group E (P = 0.05)

Conclusion:

Epidural ropivacaine produces superior intraoperative analgesia and improved postoperative pain scores without affecting ambulation but increases vasopressor need and LOS ICU in comparison with intravenous fentanyl in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.

[Epidural block associated with improved long-term survival after surgery for colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of epidural anesthesia on the long-term prognosis of patients after selective colorectal cancer resection surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study and approved by local institution review board. Patients who underwent selective colorectal cancer resection surgery from August 2011 to December 2012 in Peking University First Hospital were enrolled. The patients were divided into general anesthesia (GA) group and combined epidural-general anesthesia (EGA) group according to anesthesia type. Primary outcome was patient's long-term survival status. Secondary outcome included the overall incidence of in-hospital complications and length of postoperative in-hospital stay. Propensity score was used to match cases between the two groups based on the probability of receiving EGA. Survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared by Log-rank test between the two groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between epidural anesthesia and other variables with long-term survival status.

RESULTS

A total of 264 patients were entered into final analysis, including 166 cases in GA group and 98 cases in EGA group. Mean age of the patients was (63.3±12.1) years and mean survival time was 47.2 (95%CI 45.7-48.7) months. Before the propensity score match, the mortality in EGA group was 16.9% (28/166) and 9.2% (9/98) in GA group. But comparison between the two groups had no statistical significance (P=0.091). After the propensity score match, 87 paired cases were matched and analyzed. The risk of long-term mortality in EGA group was lower than that of GA group by Kaplan-Meier analysis (5.7% vs.16.1%, HR=0.344, 95%CI 0.124-0.955, P=0.041). Mean survival time of EGA group was longer than that of GA group (50.3 months vs. 42.9 months, P=0.032). Multivariate Cox regression ana-lysis showed that EGA, in comparison with GA, was related with lower risk of long-term mortality (HR=0.326, 95%CI 0.117-0.909, P=0.032). Age (HR=1.042, 95%CI 1.001-1.085, P=0.046) and preoperative lymph node metastasis (HR=2.924, 95%CI 1.162-7.356, P=0.023) were also related with increased risk of long-term mortality.

CONCLUSION

Present study found that perioperative use of epidural anesthesia and analgesia was associated with improvement of the patient's long-term survival. Well-designed studies are needed to verify this hypothesis.

Clinical efficacy of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the application of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 136 patients who underwent RALP between August 2017 and June 2018 as the control group and a prospective analysis of 106 patients who underwent RALP between January 2019 and January 2020 as the ERAS group. ERAS focused on preoperative education, nutritional intervention, electrolyte solution intake, restrictive fluid infusion, body warming, no indwelling central venous catheter, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), early mobilization, and eating recovery.

RESULTS

The times from RALP to the first intake of clear liquid; first ambulation; first defecation; first fluid, semi-liquid, and general diet; drain removal; and length of hospital stay (LOS) were significantly shorter, and operative time, fluid infusion within 24 hours, postoperative day (POD) 1 albumin, POD 1 hemoglobin, and POD 2 drainage were significantly higher in the ERAS group. Five patients (3.8%) in the ERAS group developed postoperative complications (urine leakage, n = 4; intestinal obstruction, n = 1), while 1 patient (0.7%) in the control group developed intestinal obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS effectively accelerated patient rehabilitation and reduced the LOS for patients undergoing RALP.

Studying Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Core Items in Colorectal Surgery: A Causal Model with Latent Variables

Background

Previous Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) studies have not always taken into account that ERAS interventions depend on baseline covariates and that several confounding variables affect the composite outcomes.

Method

A causal latent variable model is proposed to analyze data obtained prospectively concerning 1261 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery within the ERAS protocol. Primary outcomes (composite of any complication, surgical site infection, medical complications, early ready for discharge (TRD), early actual discharge) and secondary outcomes (composite of late bowel function recovery, IV fluid resumption, nasogastric tube replacement, postoperative nausea and vomiting, re-intervention, re-admission, death) are considered along with their multiple dimensions.

Results

Concerning the primary outcomes, our results evidence three subpopulations of patients: one with probable good outcome, one with possibly prolonged TRD and discharge without complications, and the other one with probable complications and prolonged TRD and discharge. Epidural anesthesia, waiving surgical drainage, and early ambulation, IV fluid stop and urinary catheter removal act favorably, while preoperative hospital stay and blood transfusion act negatively. Concerning the secondary outcomes our results evidence two subpopulations of patients: one with high probability of good outcome and one with high probability of complications. Epidural anesthesia, waiving surgical drainage, early ambulation and IV fluid stop act favorably, while blood transfusion acts negatively also with respect to these secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

The multivariate causal latent class two-parameter logistic model, a modern statistical method overcoming drawbacks of traditional models to estimate the average causal effects on the treated, allows us to disentangle subpopulations of patients and to evaluate ERAS interventions.

Intravenous Local Anesthetic Compared with Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic in Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Controlling perioperative pain is essential to improving patient experience and satisfaction following surgery. Traditionally opioids have been frequently utilised for postoperative analgesia. Although they are effective at controlling pain, they are associated with adverse effects, including postoperative nausea, vomiting, ileus and long-term opioid dependency.Following laparoscopic colectomy, the use of intravenous or intraperitoneal infusions of lidocaine (IVL, IPL) are promising emerging analgesic options. Although both techniques are promising, there have been no direct, prospective randomized comparisons in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection. The purpose of this study was to compare IPL with IVL.

METHODS

Double blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection. The two groups received equal doses of either IPL or IVL which commenced intra-operatively with a bolus followed by a continuous infusion for 3 days postoperatively. Patients were cared for through a standardized ERAS program. The primary outcome was total post-operative opioid consumption over the first three post-operative days. Patients were followed for 60 days.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the IVL or IPL groups. Total opioid consumption over the first three post-operative days was significantly lower in the IPL group (70.9 mg vs 157.8 mg p < 0.05) and overall opioid consumption during the total length of stay was also significantly lower (80.3 mg vs 187.36 mg p < 0.05. Pain scores were significantly lower at two hours post-operatively in the IPL group, however, all other time points were not significant. There were no differences in complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative use of IPL results in a significant reduction in opioid consumption following laparoscopic colon surgery when compared to IVL. This suggests that the peritoneal cavity/compartment is a strategic target for local anesthetic administration. Future ERAS recommendations should consider IPL as an important component of a multimodal pain strategy following colectomy.

Sufentanil Sublingual Tablet System (SSTS) for the management of postoperative pain after major abdominal and gynecological surgery within an ERAS protocol: an observational study

Background

The Sufentanil Sublingual Tablet System (SSTS) is a new, pre-programmed, noninvasive, handheld system for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) which may allow a faster postoperative recovery compared with standard PCA. The efficacy of SSTS in controlling pain after open abdominal surgery has already been documented. However, to our knowledge SSTS has never been investigated in patients undergoing major surgery within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol.

Methods

This observational, retrospective analysis included consecutive patients undergoing elective major abdominal and gynecological surgery. All patients received the SSTS device once they were fully awake and had a good control of pain at the end of the surgery. We analyzed changes in pain intensity according to the numerical rating scale (NRS) throughout the treatment as well as its duration, the number of administrations, and possible related adverse events. Patients were also interviewed to assess their quality of sleep and overall satisfaction with the SSTS device.

Results

The study included 308 patients. Compared to the first SSTS administration, pain intensity decreased from a median NRS of 6 to 0 at day 3, for an overall reduction of 79%. Results were already statistically significant at postoperative day 1 (p<0.01). Adverse reactions were observed in 62 patients, with nausea being the most frequent (12%), and in 93% of patients SSTS was discontinued because it was considered no longer necessary. Patient satisfaction was high, with 89% of them judging the device as “easy” or “very easy” to use.

Conclusions

Although the retrospective and observational nature of the study as well as the absence of a comparative group limits the strength of evidence, our results consider SSTS an effective and safe tool for the management of postoperative pain after major abdominal and gynecological surgery within an ERAS protocol.