Effect of peri- and postoperative epidural anaesthesia on pain and gastrointestinal function after abdominal hysterectomy

Does Uterine Manipulator Type Affect Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy?

Objectives:

Many surgeons use uterine manipulator (UM) during laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of LH operations performed by using partially reusable UM with the articulated system (artUM) and disposable (dUM) UM without articulation.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 99 patients underwent the LH operation. This study was carried out with 35 of those 99 Caucasian patients who met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 consisted for 7 LH operations using the articulated RUMI^® II/KOH-Efficient™ (Cooper Surgical, Trumbull, CT, USA) system (artUM), while Group II consisted of 28 patients using old-type V Care^®(ConMed Endosurgery, Utica, New York, USA) dUM as UM.

Results:

Mean operation time was found to be 157.1 ± 42.0 min. The operation time was found statistically longer in Group 1, consisted of artUM used patients (P = 0.006 and P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between two groups in terms of surgical results such as, delta hemoglobin value (P = 0.483 and P < 0.05), length of hospital stay (P = 0.138 and P < 0.05), and postoperative maximum body temperature (P = 0.724 and P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

The UM type did not alter the surgical outcomes except the operating time in our study. According to our results, the surgical technique is a more significant variable than instruments used in LH for normal size uterus. Further prospective, large-scale studies comparing various UM systems are mandatory.

Postoperative complications of epidural analgesia at hysterectomy for gynecologic malignancies: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify the rate of 30-day postoperative complications after the use of epidural in women undergoing hysterectomy for gynecologic malignancy. Secondary outcome was the impact of epidural on hospital length of stay.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. This large dataset includes perioperative risk factors and 30-day post-operative outcomes from more than 680 hospitals. Women who underwent abdominal hysterectomy for a gynecologic malignancy from January 2014 to December 2017 were included. Adult patients (18 years or older) who underwent abdominal hysterectomy were identified using common procedure terminology and international classification of diseases codes. Only laparotomy cases were included, and minimally invasive cases (laparoscopy, transvaginal) were excluded due to the small prevalence of epidural cases in this cohort. All patients received general anesthesia. If patients were noted to have “epidural anesthesia” they were included in the epidural cohort and those receiving other adjuvant techniques (regional blocks or spinal anesthesia) were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the 30-day occurrence of a pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection. Those who received epidural analgesia were matched in a 1:1 ratio with a similar group of patients who did not receive epidural analgesia using a calculated propensity score to control for confounding factors.

Results

A total of 2035 (13.8%) patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for a gynecologic malignancy received epidural analgesia. 1:1 propensity-matched samples included 2035 patients in both epidural and no-epidural groups. Patient characteristics between groups were similar. Overall 30-day complication rates were higher in the epidural group (75.9% vs 62.0%, P<0.01). Specific complications that were higher in the epidural group included: blood transfusion (28.9% vs 22.8%); wound disruption (2.0% vs 1.1%); surgical site infection (10.1% vs 7.2%); and delay in return of bowel function (12.3% vs 9.3%) (all P<0.05). Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the epidural group as compared with the no-epidural group (5.69 days vs 4.79 days, P<0.01) and readmissions were higher in the epidural group (10.5% vs 9.7%, P<0.01), but there was no difference in 30-day mortality between the groups (P=0.62).

Discussion

The rate of 30-day complications and length of stay among women undergoing an abdominal hysterectomy for gynecologic malignancy was higher for those who received epidural analgesia, but there was no difference in 30-day mortality. Although epidural analgesia can provide a number of benefits when used for postoperative pain control, the possible association with increased 30-day morbidity and length of stay needs to be considered.

Evidence review conducted for the AHRQ Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery: focus on anesthesiology for gynecologic surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for gynecologic (GYN) surgery are increasingly being reported and may be associated with superior outcomes, reduced length of hospital stay, and cost savings. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons and the Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, has developed the Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery, which is a nationwide initiative to disseminate best practices in perioperative care to more than 750 hospitals across five major surgical service lines in a 5-year period. The program is designed to identify evidence-based process measures shown to prevent healthcare-associated conditions and hasten recovery after surgery, integrate those into a comprehensive service line-based pathway, and assist hospitals in program implementation. In conjunction with this effort, we have conducted an evidence review of the various anesthesia components which may influence outcomes and facilitate recovery after GYN surgery. A literature search was performed for each intervention, and the highest levels of available evidence were considered. Anesthesiology-related interventions for preoperative (carbohydrate loading/fasting, multimodal preanesthetic medications), intraoperative (standardized intraoperative pathway, regional anesthesia, protective ventilation strategies, fluid minimization) and postoperative (multimodal analgesia) phases of care are included. We have summarized the best available evidence to recommend the anesthetic components of care for ERAS for GYN surgery.

Quality of recovery and analgesia after total abdominal hysterectomy under general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial of TAP block vs epidural analgesia vs parenteral medications

Background and Aims

Parenteral analgesics and epidural analgesia are two standard options to treat postoperative pain after total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block have gained popularity recently. However, effect of these analgesic regimens on quality of postoperative recovery (QoR) has not been studied. Hence we aimed to assess and compare the QoR with three different postoperative analgesic regimens---parenteral analgesia, epidural analgesia, and TAP block in patients undergoing TAH under general anesthesia.

Material and Methods

Sixty female patients undergoing TAH were randomized into three groups of 20 each for postoperative analgesia. Epidural group received boluses of 0.125% bupivacaine for 24 h, parenteral group received injection diclofenac and injection tramadol alternately every 6 h for 24 h, and TAP group received bilateral TAP block with 0.25% bupivacaine at end of operation. QoR was assessed postoperatively by 40-item questionnaire-QOR-40 and pain was assessed by numerical rating scale (NRS).

Results

QOR-40 score was comparable across the three groups at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively. TAP block prolonged the time to first rescue analgesic (P = 0.02) and reduced the total 24-h postoperative morphine consumption by 2.4 (95% CI: 1.0, 3.8) mg (P = 0.002) and 7.8 (95% CI: 6.4, 9.1) mg (P < 0.001) when compared with epidural and parenteral groups, respectively.

Conclusion

The QoR after abdominal hysterectomy is similar with either intravenous analgesics or epidural analgesia or TAP block when used with rescue analgesia to manage postoperative pain. TAP block provides superior analgesia and reduces 24-h morphine consumption when compared with parenteral and epidural analgesia.

Epidural Local Anesthetics Versus Opioid-Based Analgesic Regimens for Postoperative Gastrointestinal Paralysis, Vomiting, and Pain After Abdominal Surgery: A Cochrane Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to compare the effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anesthetics to postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, hospital length of stay, and cost after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Trials were identified by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (from 1950 to December, 2014) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of postoperative epidural local anesthetic with regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted data. We judged the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group scale.

RESULTS

Based on 22 trials including 1138 participants, an epidural containing a local anesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time required to observe the first flatus after an abdominal surgery standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used. Based on 28 trials including 1559 participants, we also found a decrease in time to first feces (stool): SMD -0.67 (95% CI, -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Based on 35 trials including 2731 participants, pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery is also reduced: SMD -0.89 (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10). Based on 22 trials including 1154 participants, we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours: risk ratio 0.84 (95% CI, 0.57-1.23); low quality of evidence. Based on 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak: risk ratio 0.74 (95% CI, 0.41-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on 30 trials including 2598 participants, epidural analgesia reduces length of hospital stay for an open surgery: SMD -0.20 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to 1 day). Data on cost were very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

An epidural containing a local anesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of the gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after an abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic does not affect the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For an open surgery, an epidural containing a local anesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

The effect of adenomyosis on the outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

The presence of adenomyosis (ADS) may increase complication rates associated with laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) due to an increased weight of the uterus, increased vascularization of the uterus, impaired myometrial tissue, and presence of additional gynecological pathologies such as leiomyoma or endometriosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate perioperative and early postoperative parameters in patients with or without adenomyotic lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included patients who underwent LH in a university hospital. Patient data were retrieved from the hospital records and reviewed retrospectively. Sixty-one patients (85.9%) without adenomyotic lesions comprised the control group. Ten patients with adenomyotic lesions (14.1%) were regarded as the study group.

RESULTS

In this study, the mean age of the patients was 50.93±9.39 years. The mean uterus size was significantly higher in patients with ADS (p=0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in perioperative variables such as delta hemoglobin (Hb), insertion of pelvic drainage catheter, and invasive assessment of the urinary tract between both the groups (p=0.27, p=1.0, and p=0.67, respectively). The difference between the groups in terms of postoperative blood transfusion was not statistically significant (p=0.25). There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative maximum body temperature, length of hospital stay, and duration of urinary catheterization between both the groups (p=0.77, p=0.36, and p=0.75, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LH appears to be a safe alternative for patients with ADS. Large-scale, prospective, and randomized trials are required in order to suggest the routine use of LH in patients preoperatively diagnosed with ADS.

Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, vomiting and pain after abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal paralysis, nausea and vomiting and pain are major clinical problems following abdominal surgery. Anaesthetic and analgesic techniques that reduce pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), while preventing or reducing postoperative ileus, may reduce postoperative morbidity, duration of hospitalization and hospital costs. This review was first published in 2001 and was updated by new review authors in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics versus postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of anastomotic leak, length of hospital stay and costs after abdominal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by conducting computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1950 to December 2014) and EMBASE (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. When we reran the search in February 2016, we added 16 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these studies into formal review findings during the next review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic versus regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We rated the quality of studies by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently extracted data and judged the quality of evidence according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 128 trials with 8754 participants in the review, and 94 trials with 5846 participants in the analysis. Trials included in the review were funded as follows: charity (n = 19), departmental resources (n = 8), governmental sources (n = 15) and industry (in part or in total) (n = 15). The source of funding was not specified for the other studies.Results of 22 trials including 1138 participants show that an epidural containing a local anaesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time to first flatus after an abdominal surgery (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used. A total of 28 trials including 1559 participants reported a decrease in time to first faeces (stool) (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Thirty-five trials including 2731 participants found that pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery was also reduced (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on scale from 0 to 10). From findings of 22 trials including 1154 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.23; low quality of evidence). From investigators in 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32; low quality of evidence). Researchers in 30 trials including 2598 participants noted that epidural analgesia reduced length of hospital stay for an open surgery (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to one day). Data on costs were very limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An epidural containing a local anaesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anaesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For open surgery, an epidural containing a local anaesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

Evidence-based anesthesia for major gynecologic surgery

Studies on enhanced recovery after gynecological surgery are limited but seem to report outcome benefits similar to those reported after colorectal surgery. Regional anesthesia is recommended in enhanced recovery protocols. Effective regional anesthetic techniques in gynecologic surgery include spinal anesthesia, epidural analgesia, transversus abdominis plane blocks, local anesthetic wound infusions and intraperitoneal instillation catheters. Non-opioid analgesics including pregabalin, gabapentin, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, and paracetamol reduce opioid consumption after surgery. This population is at high risk for PONV, thus, a multimodal anti-emetic strategy must be employed, including strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV in conjunction with combination antiemetic therapy.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Ropivacaine, articaine or combination of ropivacaine and articaine for epidural anesthesia in cesarean section: a randomized, prospective, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Initiation of epidural anesthesia with long-lasting local anesthetics consumes a significant amount of time, which could be problematic in busy obstetric anesthesia suites. We have hypothesized that a combination of articaine and ropivacaine provides faster onset and even an early recovery of sensory-motor block characteristics.

METHODS

Sixty term parturients scheduled to have elective cesarean section were randomly allocated into three groups to receive either 20 mL 2% articaine (Group A), 10 mL 2% articaine + 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (Group AR) or 20 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (Group R) via lumbar epidural catheter. The onset time of sensory block to T₁₀, T₆ and maximum sensory block level, time to two segments regression from maximum sensory block level, onset time and duration of motor block were all recorded. Intraoperative and postoperative additional analgesic requirements were also recorded.

RESULTS

Demographic data were similar. The onset times of sensorial block to T₁₀ and T₆ were significantly shorter in Groups A and AR in comparison with Group R (p<0.05). The onset times of motor block were similar in all groups, but a more intense motor block was observed in Group R (p<0.05). Two segments regression time and motor block durations were significantly shorter in Groups A and AR in comparison with Group R (p<0.05). Intraoperative supplementary analgesic requirements were higher in Group A than in the other two groups (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

A combination of 2% articaine and 0.75% ropivacaine for epidural anesthesia in a cesarean section should be preferred over epidural 0.75% ropivacaine alone.

Patient -controlled epidural ropivacaine as a post-Cesarean analgesia: a comparison with epidural morphine

OBJECTIVE

Conventional, intermittent, epidural morphine is widely applied as a post-Cesarean delivery analgesia. We compared the analgesic efficacy, motor weakness, and side effects of administering a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) of pure ropivacaine versus the intermittent administration of epidural morphine after Cesarean delivery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind study included 120 full-term parturients who underwent elective Cesarean delivery and received either PCEA with pure ropivacaine or an intermittent bolus epidural of 2 mg/10 mL morphine in normal saline twice per day. The efficacy of pain relief, post-Cesarean side effects, motor blockades, time to first ambulation, and global satisfaction scores were evaluated.

RESULTS

Pain scores were recorded at the four evaluation times (2, 12, 24, and 48 hours post-Cesarean delivery), and the time to first ambulation did not statistically differ between the two groups. Patients in the ropivacaine group experienced more motor weakness at 2 and 12 hours, fewer side effects, and higher global satisfaction scores than those in the morphine group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The analgesic efficacy after cesarean delivery was almost equivalent between two groups. PCEA with pure ropivacaine induced significant motor blockade during the first 12 hours, but without delaying the time to first ambulation. Patients in the ropivacaine group reported higher patient satisfaction scores due to the significant reduction of annoying side effects, such as pruritus, nausea, vomiting, and urinary retention.

[Combined general-epidural anesthesia compared to general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality and analgesic efficacy in thoracoabdominal surgery]

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to compare combined general-epidural anesthesia, followed by postoperative epidural analgesia, and general anesthesia followed by postoperative parenteral analgesia without epidural analgesia in patients undergoing thoracoabdominal surgery. Outcome measures considered were mortality, length of stay in hospital and in the intensive care unit, analgesia, and morbidity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and the metaRegister of clinical trials at http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/ mrct info es.asp). We also hand-searched the literature. Authors were contacted when deemed necessary.

RESULTS

A total of 30 trials (4294 patients) were analyzed. Combined anesthesia showed significant advantages in relation to 2 variables: respiratory failure (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.87) and analgesia on the first day after surgery (weighted mean difference, -6.91 95% CI, -9.46 to -4.36). No significant differences were found in the other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined anesthesia provides better analgesia and is associated with fewer cases of postoperative respiratory failure. No significant differences were found in mortality, length of stay in hospital, or other morbidity variables.

Effect of laxatives on gastrointestinal functional recovery in fast-track hysterectomy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of early oral bowel stimulation with osmotic laxatives on gastrointestinal function, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain in patients who undergo fast-track abdominal hysterectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 53 women who were assigned randomly to either laxative (magnesium oxide + disodium phosphate) or placebo that was initiated 6 hours after the operation. Primary outcome was time to first defecation; the number of vomiting episodes; nausea and pain score were assessed on a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Time to first postoperative defecation was a median of 45 hours in the laxative group and a median of 69 hours in the placebo group (P < .0001). There were no significant differences between groups in pain scores, PONV and the use of morphine or antiemetics. Postoperative hospitalization was a median of 1 day in the laxative group and of 2 days in the placebo group (P = .41).

CONCLUSION

Laxative improves recovery of gastrointestinal function after fast-track hysterectomy but has no significant effect on pain and PONV.

Postoperative analgesia after anterior correction of thoracic scoliosis: a prospective randomized study comparing continuous double epidural catheter technique with intravenous morphine

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized comparative study of two techniques for postoperative analgesia.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the efficacy of two epidural catheters compared with intravenous morphine after anterior correction of thoracic scoliosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spine surgery with anterior thoracotomy can cause severe postoperative pain. Continuous epidural analgesia through two epidural catheters was shown to be effective after posterior scoliosis correction. The efficacy of this technique has still not been demonstrated in this surgical context.

METHODS

Thirty adolescent patients with thoracic idiopathic scoliosis scheduled for anterior correction were prospectively randomized into morphine (M) or epidural (E) group. In the E group, two epidural catheters were placed transforaminally after scoliosis correction. The immediate postoperative analgesia was performed with remifentanil in all patients until the first postoperative morning (T0 = begin of study), when either continuous intravenous morphine (M group) or continuous epidural ropivacaine 0.3% (E group) was initiated. Pain at rest and in motion, morphine consumption, sensory level, motor blockade, nausea/vomiting, pruritus, bowel function, and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

In the E group, there was significantly less pain at rest and in motion, less rescue morphine consumption, improved bowel activity, and higher patient satisfaction. The incidence of side effects was significantly higher in M group.

CONCLUSIONS

Two epidural catheters provide better postoperative analgesia with fewer side effects and higher patient satisfaction after anterior instrumentation of thoracic scoliosis.

Epidural morphine analgesia compared with intravenous morphine for oral cancer surgery with pectoralis major myocutaneous flap reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Oral cancer surgery with reconstruction is a complex operative procedure with morbidities such as respiratory complications and post-operative pain. These morbidities may be reduced with appropriate operative and post-operative pain management. Epidural analgesia provides better pain control than intravenous opioids after major thoraco-abdominal surgical procedures. We planned to undertake a prospective study to compare the efficacy and side-effects of epidural morphine analgesia vs. intravenous morphine in patients undergoing oral cancer surgery with pectoralis major myocutaneous flap reconstruction.

METHODS

Sixty patients undergoing a major surgical procedure for oral cancer with pectoralis major myocutaneous flap reconstruction were prospectively randomized to receive either epidural morphine or intravenous morphine in the post-operative period. The intensity of pain was assessed daily using a 100-mm visual analogue scale. The post-operative side-effects, time to ambulation, time to tolerate first nasogastric feed, total length of hospital stay and global satisfaction score were recorded.

RESULTS

The epidural morphine group had statistically significant lower pain scores at the three evaluation times through the post-operative 48 h (P < 0.05). However, the mean visual analogue scores were always below 35 in the intravenous morphine group. Patients in the epidural morphine group ambulated and accepted nasogastric feed significantly earlier than those in the intravenous morphine group. The incidence of nausea/vomiting or pruritus, the length of hospital stay and the global satisfaction score were not statistically different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates that epidural morphine offers better pain control than intravenous morphine after oral cancer surgery with pectoralis major myocutaneous flap reconstruction. Nevertheless, both methods appear to provide very good pain relief, and perhaps the extra risks inherent to epidural catheter insertion are not outweighed by the benefits in this type of surgery.

Infiltration with ropivacaine plus lornoxicam reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption

PURPOSE

To compare efficacy and patient outcome of wound infiltration with ropivacaine, lornoxicam, or their combination for control of pain following thyroid surgery.

METHODS

Eighty patients underwent thyroid surgery were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Before skin closure, local tissues were infiltrated with 12 mL saline in Group S, with 10 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% plus 2 mL saline in Group R, with 2 mL of lornoxicam (8 mg) plus 10 mL saline in Group L, and with 10 mL ropivacaine 0.75% plus 2 mL lornoxicam (8 mg) in Group RL. Pain scores, total and incremental meperidine con-eight, 12, 18, and 24 hr postoperatively. Time to first analgesic requirement, patient satisfaction, and duration of hospital stay were also compared after surgery.

RESULTS

The pain scores in Group RL were significantly lower in the first 12 hr than in Group S, and in the first four hours than in Groups R and L (P < 0.01). The time to first analgesic requirement was significantly longer (14.8 +/- 8.4 hr vs 5.9 +/- 5.2 hr; P < 0.01), the total pethidine consumption was significantly less than Group S (34.0 +/- 33.0 mg vs 78.0 +/- 29.8 mg; P<0.001), return of gastrointestinal function, ambulation time, length of hospital stay (P < 0.05) were significantly shorter, and patient satisfaction (P < 0.01) was significantly better in Group RL than in Group S (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Wound infiltration with ropivacaine 0.75% plus lornoxicam 8 mg combination improved postoperative pain control and patient comfort, and decreased the need for opioids than the use of either drug alone.

Influence of anaesthetic and analgesic techniques on outcome after surgery

Postoperative symptoms and complications can be prevented by a suitable choice of anaesthetic and analgesic technique for specific procedures. The aim of analgesic protocols is not only to reduce pain intensity but also to decrease the incidence of side-effects from analgesic agents and to improve patient comfort. Moreover, adequate pain control is a prerequisite for the use of rehabilitation programmes to accelerate recovery from surgery. Thus, combining opioid and/or non-opioid analgesics with regional analgesic techniques not only improves analgesic efficacy but also reduces opioid demand and side-effects such as nausea and vomiting, sedation, and prolongation of postoperative ileus. Although all attempts to demonstrate that regional anaesthesia and analgesia decrease postoperative mortality are unsuccessful, there is evidence supporting a reduction in pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery, and an improvement in patient rehabilitation after orthopaedic surgery. When such techniques are used, cost-benefit analysis should be considered to determine suitable analgesic protocols for specific surgical procedures.

Reduction of opioid-related adverse events using opioid-sparing analgesia with COX-2 inhibitors lacks documentation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

We have reviewed opioid-related adverse events in studies of opioid sparing with cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors compared with placebo in postoperative pain.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled trials were evaluated. Outcome measures were significant reduction in consumption of supplementary opioids with the COX-2 inhibitors and reported opioid-related adverse events (nausea, vomiting, constipation, dizziness, sedation, pruritus and/or urinary retention) 0-24 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies including 26 comparisons of four COX-2 inhibitors (rofecoxib, celecoxib, parecoxib and valdecoxib) were evaluated, in which significant opioid-sparing averaging about 35% with COX-2 inhibitors and opioid-related adverse events were reported. The trials were in general of high quality (median Oxford quality score 4) but the reporting quality of adverse events was poor. Opioid-related adverse events, i.e. vomiting, constipation and pruritus, were only significantly reduced with COX-2 inhibitors in four of the 26 comparisons. Quantitative analysis of combined data revealed a significantly reduced risk for only dizziness; the clinical relevance was minor as the number needed to treat (NNT) was about 33.

CONCLUSION

The limitation of this review is the lack of quality of data of adverse events from the original trials. Although supplementary opioid consumption in all trials was significantly reduced by on average 35% with the COX-2 inhibitors, it was only sporadically possible to demonstrate a clinically important reduction in opioid-related adverse events. Data did not support the common opinion that opioid-sparing with COX-2 inhibitors provides much clinical beneficial effect with respect to opioid-related adverse events. Future studies have to increase the awareness and proper reporting of adverse events in the postoperative period.

Regional anaesthesia, local anaesthetics and the surgical stress response

Epidural anaesthesia has the potential to improve patients' outcome after major surgical procedures by reducing postoperative morbidity and duration of recovery. Possible benefits include the attenuation of cardiac complications, an earlier return of gastrointestinal function associated with an increase in patients' comfort overall, decreased incidence of pulmonary dysfunction, beneficial effects on the coagulation system and a reduction in the inflammatory response. The underlying mechanisms, however, remain unclear. Since local anaesthetics (LAs), reabsorbed from the epidural space, seem to contribute to these effects, it is not easy to differentiate between the systemic effects of LAs and the effects of neuraxial blockade by epidural anaesthesia. Thus, in patients not able or willing to receive intra- and/or postoperative epidural analgesia, systemic administration of LAs may be considered to be a new therapeutic approach for the prevention of postoperative disorders by modulation of the peri- and postoperative inflammatory.

Preoperative oral rofecoxib reduces postoperative pain and tramadol consumption in patients after abdominal hysterectomy

We designed this study to determine whether the administration of a preoperative dose of rofecoxib to patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy would decrease patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) tramadol use or enhance analgesia. Sixty patients were randomized to receive either oral placebo or rofecoxib 50 mg 1 h before surgery. All patients received a standard anesthetic protocol. Intraoperative blood loss was determined. At the end of surgery, all patients received tramadol IV via a PCA-device. Pain scores, sedation scores, mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation were assessed at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Total and incremental tramadol consumption at the same times was recorded from the PCA-device. Antiemetic requirements and adverse effects were noted during the first postoperative 24 h. Duration of hospital stay was also recorded. The pain scores were significantly lower in the rofecoxib group compared with the placebo group at 6 times during the first 12 postoperative h (P < 0.05). The total consumption of tramadol (627 +/- 69 mg versus 535 +/- 45 mg; P < 0.05) and the incremental doses at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h after surgery were significantly more in the placebo group than in the rofecoxib group. There were no differences between groups in intraoperative blood loss, sedation scores, hemodynamic variables, peripheral oxygen saturation, antiemetic requirements, or adverse effects after surgery. The length of hospital stay was also similar in the groups. We conclude that the preoperative administration of oral rofecoxib provided a significant analgesic benefit and decreased the opioid requirements in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

IMPLICATIONS

This study was designed to determine whether the administration of a preoperative dose of rofecoxib to patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy would decrease patient-controlled analgesia tramadol use or enhance analgesia. We conclude that the preoperative administration of oral rofecoxib provided a significant analgesic benefit and decreased the opioid requirements in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

Postoperative ileus: a review

PURPOSE

Postoperatively, some patients experience a prolonged inhibition of coordinated bowel activity, which causes accumulation of secretions and gas, resulting in nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension, and pain. This prolonged inhibition can take days or weeks to resolve and often is referred to as postoperative paralytic ileus lasting more than three days after surgery. This article reviews the etiology, pathophysiology, and treatment options of postoperative ileus.

METHODS

The relevant literature from 1965 to 2003 was identified and reviewed using MEDLINE database of the U.S. Medical Library of Medicine. Both retrospective and prospective studies were included in this review.

RESULTS

The pathophysiology of postoperative ileus is multifactorial. The duration of postoperative ileus correlates with the degree of surgical trauma and is most extensive after colonic surgery. However, postoperative ileus can develop after all types of surgery including extraperitoneal surgery. A variety of treatment options have been used to decrease the duration of postoperative ileus. However, it is difficult to compare these studies because of small sample sizes and differences in operations performed, anesthesia protocols provided both intraoperatively and postoperatively, patient comorbidities, and in the measured end points, such as the time to the presence of bowel sounds, flatus, or bowel movements, tolerance of solid food, or discharge from the hospital. However, despite these drawbacks, some conclusions can be made.

CONCLUSIONS

Paralytic postoperative ileus continues to be a significant problem after abdominal and other types of surgery. The etiology is multifactorial and is best treated with a combination of different approaches. Currently, the important factors that could effect the duration and recovery from postoperative ileus include limitation of narcotic use by substituting alternative medications such as nonsteroidals and placing a thoracic epidural with local anesthetic when possible. The selective use of nasogastric decompression and correction of electrolyte imbalances also are important factors to consider.

Postoperative ileus: progress towards effective management

The pathogenesis of postoperative ileus (PI) is multifactorial, and includes activation of inhibitory reflexes, inflammatory mediators and opioids (endogenous and exogenous). Accordingly, various strategies have been employed to prevent PI. As single-modality treatment, continuous postoperative epidural analgesia including local anaesthetics has been most effective in the prevention of PI. Choice of anaesthetic technique has no major impact on PI. Minimally invasive surgery reduces PI, in accordance with the sustained reduction in the inflammatory responses, while the effects of early institution of oral nutrition on PI per se are minor. Several pharmacological agents have been employed to resolve PI (propranolol, dihydroergotamine, neostigmine, erythromycin, cisapride, metoclopramide, cholecystokinin, ceruletide and vasopressin), most with either limited effect or limited applicability because of adverse effects. The development of new peripheral selective opioid antagonists is promising and has been demonstrated to shorten PI significantly. A multi-modal rehabilitation programme including continuous epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics, enforced nutrition and mobilisation may reduce PI to 1-2 days after colonic surgery.

Current status of pre-emptive analgesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The controversy over preemptive analgesia continues unabated, with studies both supporting and refuting its efficacy. The timing of an analgesic intervention and presence of a placebo control may have significant impact on the interpretation of results and may have led to the premature conclusion that preemptive analgesia is of limited clinical utility. A review of the recent literature using strict definitions of preemptive and preventive analgesia is required in order to clarify the broader issue of the benefits of perioperative analgesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 27 studies, published from April 2001 to April 2002, were found to evaluate preemptive (n = 12) or preventive analgesia (n = 15). Evidence for a benefit of preventive analgesia was strong, with 60% of studies finding reduced pain or analgesic consumption beyond the clinical duration of action of the analgesic intervention. Evidence for a benefit of preemptive analgesia was equivocal, with 41.7% of studies demonstrating that preincisional treatment reduces pain or analgesic consumption to a greater extent than does postincisional treatment.

SUMMARY

Studies that used a preventive design had a greater likelihood of finding a beneficial effect. The application of preventive perioperative analgesia (not necessarily preincisional) is associated with a significant reduction in pain beyond the clinical duration of action of the analgesic agent, in particular for the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists. The classical definition of preemptive analgesia should be abandoned in favor of preventive analgesia. This will broaden the scope of inquiry from a narrow focus on preincisional versus postincisional interventions to one that aims to minimize postoperative pain and analgesic requirements by reducing peripheral and central sensitization arising from noxious preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative inputs.