A controlled study on the effect of epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics and morphine on morbidity after abdominal surgery

Epidural Anesthesia in Liver Surgery-A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of epidural anesthesia (EA) on patients who underwent liver resection.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

This single-center study was conducted at an academic medical center.

METHODS

A subset of 110 1:1 propensity score-matched patients who underwent liver resection with and without EA were analyzed. Outcome measures were pain intensity ≥5 on a numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during movement on postoperative days 1-5, analyzed with logistic mixed-effects models, and postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, length of hospital stay (LOS), and one-year survival. One-year survival in the matched cohorts was compared using a frailty model.

RESULTS

EA patients were less likely to experience NRS ≥5 at rest (odds ratio = 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.28, P < 0.001). These findings were independent of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, baseline NRS, and surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic). The number and severity of postoperative complications and LOS were comparable between groups (P = 0.258, P > 0.999, and P = 0.467, respectively). Reduced mortality rates were seen in the EA group one year after surgery (9.1% vs 30.9%, hazard ratio = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.90, P = 0.031). No EA-related adverse events occurred. Earlier recovery of bowel function was seen in EA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with EA had better postoperative pain control and required fewer systemic opioids. Postoperative complications and LOS did not differ, although one-year survival was significantly improved in patients with EA. EA applied in liver surgery was effective and safe.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The effects of dexamethasone, light anesthesia, and tight glucose control on postoperative fatigue and quality of life after major noncardiac surgery: A randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The postoperative period is associated with an inflammatory response that may contribute to a number of complications including postoperative fatigue (POF) that impair patients' quality of life (QoL). We studied the impact of three potentially anti-inflammatory interventions (steroid administration, tight intraoperative glucose control, and light anesthesia) on POF and QoL in patients having major noncardiac surgery.

DESIGN

A randomized Trial.

SETTING

Operating room and postoperative recovery area/ICU/hospital floors.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to perioperative IV dexamethasone (a total of 14 mg tapered over 3 days) versus placebo, intensive versus conventional glucose control (target 80-110 vs. 180-200 mg·dL^-1), and light versus deep anesthesia (Bispectral Index target of 55 vs. 35) in a 3-way factorial design.

MEASUREMENTS

In this planned sub-analysis, QoL was measured using SF-12 preoperatively and on postoperative day (POD) 30. POF was measured using Christensen VAS, pre-operatively, POD 1, and POD 3. We assessed the effect of each intervention on POF and on the physical and mental components of SF-12 summary scores with repeated-measures linear regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

326 patients with complete data were included in the SF-12 analysis and 306 were included in the QoL analysis. No difference was found between any of the intervention groups on fatigue or mean 30-day physical and mental components of SF-12 scores, after adjusting for preoperative score and imbalanced baseline variables (all P-value >0.07 for POF and >0.40 for QoL).

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid administration, tight intraoperative glucose control, and light anesthesia do not improve quality of life or postoperative fatigue after major surgery.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

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).

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).

Management of Pain in the Critically Ill

Analgesia for critically ill patients can be provided most effectively by the use of modern techniques. Under standing of the anatomical pathways for nociceptive sig nal transmission allows the use of techniques that mod ulate or block nociceptive information at several levels (periphery, spinal cord, and systemic). A comprehen sive discussion of analgesic techniques at each level is presented. Formulation of a treatment plan is discussed. Several examples are presented to show the decision- making process for the use of modern analgesic tech niques in critically ill patients.

Peri-operative epidural may not be the preferred form of analgesia in select patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Epidural analgesia has become the preferred method of pain management for major abdominal surgery. However, the superior form of analgesia for pancreaticoduodenecomy (PD), with regard to non-analgesic outcomes, has been debated. In this study, we compare outcomes of epidural and intravenous analgesia for PD and identify pre-operative factors leading to early epidural discontinuation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on 163 patients undergoing PD between 2007 and 2011. We performed regression analyses to measure the predictive success of two groups of analgesia on morbidity and mortality and to identify predictors of epidural failure.

RESULTS

Intravenous analgesia alone was given to 14 (9%) patients and 149 patients (91%) received epidural analgesia alone or in conjunction with intravenous analgesia. Morbidity and mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. Early epidural discontinuation was necessary in 22 patients (15%). Those older than 72 and with a BMI < 20 (n = 5) had their epidural discontinued in 80% of cases compared to 12% not meeting these criteria. However, early epidural discontinuation was not associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Epidural analgesia may be contraindicated in elderly, underweight patients undergoing PD given their increased risk of epidural-induced hypotension or malfunction.

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.

Comparison of the effect of epidural and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia on bowel activity after cesarean section: a retrospective study of 726 Chinese patients

BACKGROUND

Epidural patient-controlled analgesia (EPCA) and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) have been used widely in parturients after cesarean section. Although many studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of both EPCA and IVPCA, their effects on bowel activity of patients who have undergone cesarean section delivery have not yet been investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of EPCA and IVPCA on bowel activity after cesarean section.

METHODS

We collected data from 726 parturients who consented to receive either EPCA or IVPCA for postoperative analgesia following cesarean section delivery. All patients used postoperative PCA for at least 2 days. The analgesic solution for EPCA was 0.05% bupivacaine plus fentanyl (3 microg/mL), and that for IVPCA was 0.1% morphine. The patients were assessed by visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores at rest and in a dynamic state, time to first flatus passage after the surgery, and overall satisfaction after completion of the PCA course. Student's t test was used to determine intergroup differences.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between the EPCA and IVPCA groups in the time to first flatus passage, overall satisfaction and VAS scores at rest and in a dynamic state. Patients in the EPCA group had a shorter time to first flatus passage, higher overall satisfaction and lower VAS scores. In addition, regional anesthesia offered an apparently shorter time to first flatus passage in comparison with general anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

PCA is safe and effective in alleviating postoperative pain following cesarean section. EPCA offers a faster return of bowel activity, lower VAS scores, and better patient satisfaction than IVPCA.

[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.

Gastrointestinal motility in acute illness

Critical illness affects gastrointestinal motility - not only as a primary problem, which brings the patient to the intensive care unit (ICU), but also as a complication consecutive to the ICU stay. Motility disturbances may result from impaired function of gastrointestinal muscle, pacemaker cell function and nerve activity. The most important neural control system is the enteric nervous system that contains the largest collection of neurons (10(8) cells) outside the central nervous system. Through its organization it can operate independently of the brain and generate motility patterns according to need: a postprandial motility pattern starting after food intake, and an interdigestive motility pattern starting several hours after a meal. Undisturbed intestinal motility depends critically on a balanced interaction between inhibition and excitation, and a disturbance in this balance leads to severe derangements of intestinal motility. These motility disturbances differ in clinical appearance and location but can affect all parts of the gastrointestinal tract. This review focuses on select motility disturbances such as gastroparesis, postoperative ileus, and Ogilvie's syndrome. Generally effective methods to treat these conditions are given. Finally, we focus on special management options to prevent such motility disturbances or to reduce their severity.

New therapies in the treatment of postoperative ileus after gastrointestinal surgery

Postoperative ileus after gastrointestinal surgery results from many factors, including the effects of surgical trauma, anesthetic agents, hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system, local inflammatory reactions, and the use of opioids in the postoperative period. Postoperative ileus can lead to potential complications and may prolong patients' hospitalization, thereby leading to an increase in healthcare costs. There have been recent efforts to improve the understanding of the pathogenesis of postoperative ileus and to develop new treatments to prevent or minimize its occurrence. Here, we present a review of the factors related to the development of postoperative ileus and new therapies directed at its prevention.

The effect of epidural analgesia on postoperative outcome after colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to determine the effects of epidural analgesia as it relates to outcome after colorectal surgery.

METHOD

We searched and reviewed studies that included colorectal surgery and epidural method of analgesia listed on the Pubmed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library database.

RESULTS

The majority of data demonstrate a superior effect of epidural analgesia on pain control after colorectal surgery. Well designed randomized controlled trials (RCT's) have also shown that epidural analgesia reduces the duration of ileus after colorectal surgery. Limited data suggest the additional benefit may be minimal after laparoscopic surgery or when epidural analgesia is used as part of a multimodal regime. Data does not convincingly show either a clear harmful or beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on rates of anastomotic leakage. Epidural analgesia may have beneficial effects on postoperative lung function, however due to low numbers, the effects on cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications are indeterminate. Length of hospital stay has not been shown to be shortened by sole use of an epidural and, although epidural analgesia may be apparently more costly, alternatives may incur higher indirect costs and decreased patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Randomized controlled trials have shown a benefit for epidurals on postoperative pain relief, and ileus, and possibly respiratory complications. There is no proven benefit with regard to length of stay. There are a number of unresolved issues which further focussed RCT's may help clarify such as effects of epidural on complication rates after colorectal surgery.

The benefits of adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia: a metaanalysis

The purpose of this metaanalysis was to determine the benefits of postoperative epidural analgesia in patients operated on under general anesthesia. By searching the American National Library of Medicine's Pubmed database from 1966 to July 10, 2004, 70 studies were identified. These included 5402 patients, of which 2660 had had epidural analgesia. Epidural analgesia reduces the incidence of arrhythmia, odds ratio (OR) = 0.59 (95%CI = 0.42, 0.81, P = 0.001); time to tracheal extubation, OR = -3.90 h (95%CI = -6.37, -1.42, P = 0.002); intensive care unit stay, OR = -2.94 h (95%CI = -5.66, -0.22, P = 0.03); visual analogical pain (VAS) scores at rest, OR = -0.78 (95%CI = -0.99, -0.57, P < 0.00001) and during movement, OR = -1.28 (95%CI = -1.81, -0.75, P < 0.00001); maximal blood epinephrine, OR = -165.70 pg.ml(-1) (95%CI = -252.18, -79.23, P = 0.0002); norepinephrine, OR = -134.24 pg.ml(-1) (95%CI = -247.92, -20.57, P = 0.02); cortisol, OR = -55.81 nmol.l(-1) (95%CI = -79.28, -32.34, P < 0.00001); and glucose concentrations achieved, OR = -0.87 nmol.l(-1) (95%CI = -1.37, -0.37, P = 0.0006). It also reduces the first 24-h morphine consumption, OR = -13.62 mg (95%CI = -22.70, -4.54, P = 0.003), and improves the forced vital capacity (FVC), OR = 0.23 l (95%CI = 0.09, 0.37, P = 0.001) at 24 h. A thoracic epidural containing a local anesthetic reduces the incidence of renal failure: OR = 0.34 (95%CI = 0.14, 0.81, P = 0.01). Epidural analgesia may thus offer many advantages over other modes of postoperative analgesia.

Epidural Analgesia for Postoperative Pain

Epidural analgesia provides superior analgesia compared with other postoperative analgesic techniques. Additionally, perioperative epidural analgesia confers physiologic benefits, which may potentially decrease perioperative complications and improve postoperative outcome. However, there are many variables (eg, choice of analgesics, catheter-incision congruency, and duration of analgesia) that may influence the efficacy of epidural analgesia. In addition, the use of epidural analgesia should be evaluated on an individual basis because there are risks associated with this technique.

Epidural analgesia in gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND

The ideal perioperative analgesia should provide effective pain relief, avoid the detrimental effects of the stress response, be simple to administer without the need for intensive monitoring, and have a low risk of complications.

METHODS

This review defines the physiological effects of epidural analgesia and assesses whether the available evidence supports its preferential use in gastrointestinal surgery. All papers studied were identified from a Medline search or selected by cross-referencing.

RESULTS

Epidural analgesia is associated with a shorter duration of postoperative ileus, attenuation of the stress response, fewer pulmonary complications, and improved postoperative pain control and recovery. It does not reduce anastomotic leakage, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion requirement, risk of thromboembolism or cardiac morbidity, or hospital stay compared with that after conventional analgesia in unselected patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Thoracic epidural analgesia reduces hospital costs and stay in patients at high risk of cardiac or pulmonary complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia enhances recovery after gastrointestinal surgery. The results support the development of structured regimens of early postoperative feeding and mobilization to exploit the potential for thoracic epidural analgesia to reduce hospital stay after gastrointestinal surgery.

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 patient-controlled analgesia in the elderly: risks and benefits of epidural versus intravenous administration

Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia provided by the intravenous route using morphine (PCA) or by the epidural route using an opioid in combination with a local anaesthetic (patient-controlled epidural analgesia; PCEA) is not yet routinely used in the elderly. However, this modality theoretically provides adequate control of postoperative pain in such patients. Firstly, an assessment of the level of pain is particularly difficult in the elderly, and patient-controlled techniques that enable the self-administration of analgesic could resolve this problem. Secondly, these techniques provide a fine and controlled titration of analgesic doses. Since analgesic-induced adverse effects increase with age, the risk of overdose is therefore reduced. Thirdly, effective postoperative patient-controlled analgesia may attenuate detrimental physiologic responses, and contribute to improvement in patient outcomes. In the elderly, PCEA provides better pain relief, particularly for dynamic pain, and improves postoperative recovery with a low incidence of adverse effects compared with PCA. PCA and PCEA techniques have a good safety profile in the elderly only when there is careful preoperative patient selection and strict postoperative monitoring. Standard observation of vital signs, sedation and pain scores and assessment of mental status are required. Patient selection is necessary to identify those patients who may be incapable of using the device (e.g. patients with evidence of cognitive dysfunction or physical disabilities). In addition, caution is required among patients with respiratory, renal or hepatic insufficiency. PCA and PCEA are particularly useful for elderly patients undergoing major thoraco-abdominal surgery. However, there is a need for further research in elderly patients. In the future, improvements in the management of postoperative pain in the elderly will lead to a greater expansion of self-controlled techniques.

The role of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in surgical practice

OBJECTIVE

To review the potential and proven benefits and complications of epidural anesthesia/analgesia.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Advances in analgesia/anesthesia have improved patient satisfaction and perioperative outcomes. Epidural anesthesia/analgesia is one of these advances that is gaining rapid acceptance due to a perceived reduction in morbidity and overall patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted for all pertinent articles on epidural anesthesia/analgesia.

RESULTS

Retrospective, prospective, and meta-analysis studies have demonstrated an improvement in surgical outcome through beneficial effects on perioperative pulmonary function, blunting the surgical stress response and improved analgesia. In particular, significant reduction in perioperative cardiac morbidity ( approximately 30%), pulmonary infections ( approximately 40%), pulmonary embolism ( approximately 50%), ileus ( approximately 2 days), acute renal failure ( approximately 30%), and blood loss ( approximately 30%) were noted in our review of the literature. Potential complications related to epidural anesthesia/analgesia range from transient paresthesias (<10%) to potentially devastating epidural hematomas (0.0006%).

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural anesthesia/analgesia has been demonstrated to improve postoperative outcome and attenuate the physiologic response to surgery.

Postoperative ileus: etiologies and interventions

This article will review the pathophysiology of postoperative ileus, with emphasis on potential therapeutic targets, and examine the efficacy of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. Proposed mechanisms include actuation of spinal and local sympathetic neural reflexes, inflammatory mediation, and exacerbation by anesthetic or surgical procedures. Some procedures or agents have shown clinical benefit, and these include use of laparoscopic surgery, thoracic epidurals, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opiate antagonists. Other procedures may be helpful with low risk of adverse effects. These include early feeding and ambulation, laxatives, and possibly neostigmine.

A comparison of multimodal perioperative analgesia to epidural pain management after gastric bypass surgery

We compared pain intensity, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, and length of stay in 114 patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomized to incisional local anesthetic infiltration plus postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (Group A), epidural anesthesia and analgesia (Group B), or postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (Group C). All received perioperative nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Age, sex, body mass index, length of stay, and patient satisfaction were equivalent in all groups. Pain at time 0 and 36 h was the smallest in Group B, greater in Group A, and greatest in Group C. Pain scores in a subset of Group A were lower at all times than in Groups B and C, but this difference was significant only at 0, 12, and 36 h. In responders, infiltration analgesia as part of a multimodal regimen offers a simple, safe, and inexpensive alternative to epidural pain control.

Effect of post-operative analgesia on patient morbidity

The pathophysiology that commonly follows surgery results in detrimental physiological effects and may be associated with post-operative mortality and morbidity. The use of post-operative epidural analgesia, but not systemic opioids, may attenuate some of these adverse physiological effects and result in a decrease in patient-related morbidity post-operatively. Randomized trials suggest that the perioperative use of epidural analgesia may facilitate return of gastrointestinal function, attenuate hypercoagulable events and diminish post-operative pulmonary complications. A multimodal approach incorporating the use of epidural analgesia to control perioperative pathophysiology will facilitate the patient's recovery.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for postoperative fatigue

BACKGROUND

Postoperative fatigue is common, even after uncomplicated operations. Various theories have been presented regarding its aetiology, each suggesting different possible interventions. The purpose of this review was to identify all studies that have assessed interventions for postoperative fatigue and to evaluate these interventions using meta-analytical techniques.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of interventions, identified from a systematic search of relevant databases, were evaluated according to standardized criteria and categorized according to intervention modality. Data relating to the efficacy of each intervention at four different postoperative time-points were collated and data synthesis by meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Analgesia is effective in reducing fatigue immediately after operation. Perioperative administration of human growth hormone reduces fatigue between 8 and 30 days after abdominal surgery. Weaker evidence was found to suggest an influence of glucocorticoid administration and of surgical technique on fatigue in the first week after operation. No evidence was found to support the theory that psychosocial or nutritional interventions affect the symptom.

CONCLUSION

While the results demonstrate that improved analgesia can attenuate immediate postoperative fatigue in most patient groups, further research is needed to determine whether the efficacy of human growth hormone and glucocorticoids extends beyond abdominal surgery. The paucity of research into cognitive-behavioural, sleep and activity-based interventions also needs to be addressed.

Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia - effects on surgical stress responses and implications for postoperative nutrition

BACKGROUND

Surgical injury leads to an endocrine-metabolic and inflammatory response with protein catabolism, increased cardiovascular demands, impaired pulmonary function and paralytic ileus, the most important release mechanisms being afferent neural stimuli and inflammatory mediators.

RESULTS

Epidural local anaesthetic blockade of afferent stimuli reduces endocrine metabolic responses, and improve postoperative catabolism. Furthermore, dynamic pain relief is achieved with improved pulmonary function and a pronounced reduction of postoperative ileus, thereby providing optimal conditions for improved mobilization and oral nutrition, and preservation of body composition and muscle function. Studies integrating continuous epidural local anaesthetics with enforced early nutrition and mobilization uniformly suggest an improved recovery, decreased hospital stay and convalescence.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural local anaesthetics should be included in a multi-modal rehabilitation programme after major surgical procedures in order to facilitate oral nutrition, improve recovery and reduce morbidity.

Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Epidural block is widely used to manage major abdominal surgery and postoperative analgesia, but its risks and benefits are uncertain. We compared adverse outcomes in high-risk patients managed for major surgery with epidural block or alternative analgesic regimens with general anaesthesia in a multicentre randomised trial.

METHODS

915 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with one of nine defined comorbid states to identify high-risk status were randomly assigned intraoperative epidural anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia for 72 h with general anaesthesia (site of epidural selected to provide optimum block) or control. The primary endpoint was death at 30 days or major postsurgical morbidity. Analysis by intention to treat involved 447 patients assigned epidural and 441 control.

FINDINGS

255 patients (57.1%) in the epidural group and 268 (60.7%) in the control group had at least one morbidity endpoint or died (p=0.29). Mortality at 30 days was low in both groups (epidural 23 [5.1%], control 19 [4.3%], p=0.67). Only one of eight categories of morbid endpoints in individual systems (respiratory failure) occurred less frequently in patients managed with epidural techniques (23% vs 30%, p=0.02). Postoperative epidural analgesia was associated with lower pain scores during the first 3 postoperative days. There were no major adverse consequences of epidural-catheter insertion.

INTERPRETATION

Most adverse morbid outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are not reduced by use of combined epidural and general anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia. However, the improvement in analgesia, reduction in respiratory failure, and the low risk of serious adverse consequences suggest that many high-risk patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery will receive substantial benefit from combined general and epidural anaesthesia intraoperatively with continuing postoperative epidural analgesia.

Regional analgesia in the intensive care unit. Principles and practice

Nociception is a complicated process, and only in recent years have the neural pathways and mediators of pain transmission been unraveled. Several regional anesthetic interventions, most notably epidural drug delivery, can interrupt nociception and provide safe and effective pain control in critically ill patients while substantially reducing the need for systemic medications. This article discusses the possibilities for regional control of the neurobiology of nociception and describes the arsenal of regional anesthetic techniques available to the intensivist. Used wisely, regional techniques can provide excellent pain control and may have a significant role in improving overall patient outcome. Regional analgesia offers the best opportunity to provide substantial analgesia without significant central opioid effects. Well-conducted regional analgesia can reduce many of the unpleasant or potentially problematic side effects observed when traditional intravenous medications are used exclusively for pain control.

Epidural analgesia reduces postoperative myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis

Postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality continue to pose considerable risks to surgical patients. Postoperative epidural analgesia is considered to have beneficial effects on cardiac outcomes. The use in high-risk cardiac patients remains controversial. No study has shown that postoperative epidural analgesia decreases postoperative myocardial infarction (PMI) or death. All studies are underpowered to show such a result, and the cost of conducting a large trial is prohibitive. We performed a metaanalysis to determine whether postoperative epidural analgesia continued for more than 24 h after surgery reduces PMI or in-hospital death. The available databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of epidural analgesia that was extended at least 24 h into the postoperative period. The search yielded 17 studies, of which 11 were randomized controlled trials comprising 1173 patients. Metaanalysis was conducted by using the fixed-effects model, calculating both an odds ratio and a rate difference. Postoperative epidural analgesia resulted in better analgesia for the first 24 h after surgery. The rate of PMI was 6.3%, with lower rates in the Epidural group (rate difference, -3.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.4%, -0.2%; P = 0.049). The frequency of in-hospital death was 3.3%, with no significant difference between Epidural and Nonepidural groups (rate difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -3.8%, 1.2%, P = 0.091). Subgroup analysis of postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia showed a significant reduction in PMI in the Epidural group (rate difference, -5.3%; 95% CI, -9.9%, -0.7%; P = 0.04).

IMPLICATIONS

Postoperative epidural analgesia, especially thoracic epidural analgesia, continued for more than 24 h reduces postoperative myocardial infarctions.

Effect of epidural anesthesia and analgesia on perioperative outcome: a randomized, controlled Veterans Affairs cooperative study

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that epidural anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia decrease the incidence of death and major complications during and after four types of intraabdominal surgical procedures.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Even though many beneficial aspects of epidural anesthesia have been reported, clinical trials of epidural anesthesia for outcome of surgical patients have shown conflicting results.

METHODS

The authors studied 1,021 patients who required anesthesia for one of the intraabdominal aortic, gastric, biliary, or colon operations. They were assigned randomly to receive either general anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with parenteral opioids (group 1) or epidural plus light general anesthesia and postoperative epidural morphine (group 2). The patients were monitored for death and major complications during and for 30 days after surgery, as well as for postoperative pain, time of ambulation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Overall, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death and major complications between the two groups. For abdominal aortic surgical patients, unlike the other three types of surgical patients, the overall incidence of death and major complications was significantly lower in group 2 patients (22%) than in group 1 patients (37%), stemming from differences in the incidence of new myocardial infarction, stroke, and respiratory failure between the two groups. Overall, group 2 patients received significantly less analgesic medication but had better pain relief than group 1 patients. In group 2 aortic patients, endotracheal intubation time was 13 hours shorter and surgical intensive care stay was 3.5 hours shorter.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of anesthetic and postoperative analgesic techniques on perioperative outcome varies with the type of operation performed. Overall, epidural analgesia provides better postoperative pain relief. Epidural anesthesia and epidural analgesia improve the overall outcome and shorten the intubation time and intensive care stay in patients undergoing abdominal aortic operations.

The effect of intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia on bowel function after colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized trial

PURPOSE

Colorectal surgery is associated with postoperative ileus, which contributes to delayed discharge. This study was designed to investigate the effect of thoracic epidural anesthesia and analgesia on gastrointestinal function after colorectal surgery under standardized controlled postoperative care.

METHODS

Forty-two patients diagnosed with either colonic cancer, diverticulitis, polyps, or adenoma, and scheduled for elective colorectal surgery, were randomly assigned to either postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine (n = 21) or epidural analgesia with a mixture of bupivacaine and fentanyl (n = 21). Postoperative early oral feeding and assistance to mobilization were offered to all patients. Pain visual analog scale (1-100 mm), passage of flatus and bowel movements, length of hospital stay, and readiness for discharge were recorded.

RESULTS

Pain visual analog scale (visual analog scale, 1-100 mm) at rest, on coughing, and daily on mobilization was significantly lower in the epidural group compared with the patient-controlled analgesia group. Median values for the visual analog scale group were 7 (95 percent confidence interval, 2-18) mm, 19 (95 percent confidence interval, 4-38) mm, and 10 (95 percent confidence interval, 5-33) mm, respectively, and, for the patient-controlled analgesia group, were 24 (95 percent confidence interval, 18-51) mm, 59 (95 percent confidence interval, 33-74) mm, and 40 (95 percent confidence interval, 29-79) mm, respectively (P < 0.01). Intake of protein and calories and time out of bed were similar in both groups. Mean time intervals +/- standard deviation from surgery to first flatus and first bowel movement occurred earlier in the epidural group, 1.9 +/- 0.6 days and 3.1 +/- 1.7 days, respectively, compared with patient-controlled analgesia, 3.6 +/- 1.5 days and 4.6 +/- 1.6 days, respectively (P < 0.01). Postoperative complications occurred in 33 percent of the patient-controlled analgesia group and 28 percent of the epidural group. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between the two groups with a mean of 7.3 +/- 3.7 days in the patient-controlled analgesia group and 8.5 +/- 4.2 days in the epidural group. Readiness for discharge was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic epidural analgesia has distinct advantages over patient-controlled analgesia morphine in providing superior quality of analgesia and shortening the duration of postoperative ileus. However, discharge home was not faster, indicating that other perioperative factors influence the length of hospital stay.

Epidural analgesia and risk of anastomotic leakage

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Based on case reports of early anastomotic leakage in patients receiving epidural analgesia with local anesthetic and data to document a stimulatory effect of epidural block on gastrointestinal motility, it has been suggested that continuous infusion of epidural local anesthetic may lead to an increased incidence of anastomotic leakage. Therefore, we examined the association between continuous epidural local anesthetic and anastomotic leakage by reviewing the literature.

METHODS

Review of controlled, randomized clinical trials aiming to investigate postoperative complications in which continuous postoperative epidural local anesthetic was administered in patients scheduled for colorectal surgery with an anastomosis. Data were obtained from a Medline search (1966-May 2000), previous review articles, references cited in original papers, and personal communication with investigators. Twelve trials including a total of 562 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Sixteen of 266 patients (6.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.5% to 9.6%) receiving postoperative epidural local anesthetic or epidural local anesthetic-opioid mixtures developed anastomotic leakage, compared with 10 of 296 patients (3.4%, 95% CI: 1.6% to 6.1%) receiving epidural or systemic opioid-based analgesia (P >.05 between groups, Fisher's test). The risk of overlooking a significant difference (type II error) was approximately 67% (power: 33%). Studies including more than 1,037 patients in each group are needed to demonstrate an increased risk of anastomotic leakage from 3.4% to 6.0% with 80% power and 2alpha = 0.05. There was no significant difference (P >.05 between groups, Fisher's test) between subgroups of study design: Epidural local anesthetic-versus systemic or epidural opioid, or epidural local anesthetic-opioid mixtures versus systemic or epidural opioid.

CONCLUSIONS

So far, there is no statistically significant evidence from randomized trials to indicate epidural analgesia with local anesthetic to be associated with an increased risk of anastomotic breakdown. However, relatively few patients have been included in randomized trials, indicating a need for more studies to secure valid conclusions.

Epidural naloxone reduces intestinal hypomotility but not analgesia of epidural morphine

PURPOSE

Epidural morphine is associated with decreased bowel motility and increased transit time. Low doses of intravenous naloxone reduce morphine-induced pruritus without reversing analgesia, but the effect of epidural naloxone on bowel motility has not been studied. Therefore we evaluated bowel motility and analgesia when naloxone was co-administered with morphine into the epidural space.

METHODS

Forty-three patients having combined thoracic epidural and general anesthesia for subtotal gastrectomy were randomly assigned to one of two study groups. All received a bolus dose of 3 mg epidural morphine at the beginning of surgery, followed by a continuous epidural infusion containing 3 mg morphine in 100 ml bupivacaine 0.125% with either no naloxone (control group, n = 18) or a calculated dose of 0.208 microg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) of naloxone (experimental group, n = 25) for 48 hr. We measured the time to the first postoperative passage of flatus and feces to evaluate the restoration of bowel function, and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain during rest and movement. Scores were assessed at 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 36 and 48 hr postoperatively.

RESULTS

The experimental group had a shorter time to the first postoperative passage of flatus (5 1.9 +/- 1 6.6 hr vs 87.0 +/- 19.5 hr, P < 0.001 ) and feces (95.3 +/- 25.0 hr vs 132.9 +/- 29.4 hr, P < 0.001). No differences were found in either resting or active VAS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Epidural naloxone reduces epidural morphine-induced intestinal hypomotility without reversing its analgesic effects.

Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

To obtain reliable estimates of the effects of neuraxial blockade with epidural or spinal anaesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN

Systematic review of all trials with randomisation to intraoperative neuraxial blockade or not.

STUDIES

141 trials including 9559 patients for which data were available before 1 January 1997. Trials were eligible irrespective of their primary aims, concomitant use of general anaesthesia, publication status, or language. Trials were identified by extensive search methods, and substantial amounts of data were obtained or confirmed by correspondence with trialists.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All cause mortality, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, transfusion requirements, pneumonia, other infections, respiratory depression, and renal failure.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was reduced by about a third in patients allocated to neuraxial blockade (103 deaths/4871 patients versus 144/4688 patients, odds ratio=0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.90, P=0. 006). Neuraxial blockade reduced the odds of deep vein thrombosis by 44%, pulmonary embolism by 55%, transfusion requirements by 50%, pneumonia by 39%, and respiratory depression by 59% (all P<0.001). There were also reductions in myocardial infarction and renal failure. Although there was limited power to assess subgroup effects, the proportional reductions in mortality did not clearly differ by surgical group, type of blockade (epidural or spinal), or in those trials in which neuraxial blockade was combined with general anaesthesia compared with trials in which neuraxial blockade was used alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuraxial blockade reduces postoperative mortality and other serious complications. The size of some of these benefits remains uncertain, and further research is required to determine whether these effects are due solely to benefits of neuraxial blockade or partly to avoidance of general anaesthesia. Nevertheless, these findings support more widespread use of neuraxial blockade.

Clarithromycin attenuates mastectomy-induced acute inflammatory response

Based on the observation that administration of clarithromycin led to an attenuation of the inflammatory response induced by surgical trauma in a guinea pig model, we investigated the potential beneficial effects of clarithromycin on the local and systemic inflammatory response in patients undergoing mastectomy in an open-label prospective study. During a 16-month period, 54 patients who underwent mastectomy were randomly divided into two groups. In one group, the patients received oral clarithromycin at a dose of 500 mg twice a day, from the day before to 3 days after mastectomy. There was no significant difference in the incidence of antibiotic prophylaxis-related toxicities or postoperative infections between the patients who received clarithromycin and those who did not. Clarithromycin treatment was significantly associated with an attenuation of febrile response, tachycardia, tachypnea, and an increase in monocyte counts (P, <0.0001, <0.01, <0.05, and <0.01, respectively). Clarithromycin also reduced the intensity and duration of postoperative pain (P, <0.05 and <0.005, respectively) and increased the range of motion of the involved shoulder (P < 0.05 for abduction and flexion). We conclude that clarithromycin effectively modulates the acute inflammatory response associated with mastectomy and produces a better clinical outcome.

Postoperative ileus: a preventable event

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ileus has traditionally been accepted as a normal response to tissue injury. No data support any beneficial effect of ileus and indeed it may contribute to delayed recovery and prolonged hospital stay. Efforts should, therefore, be made to reduce such ileus.

METHODS

Material was identified from a Medline search of the literature, previous review articles and references cited in original papers. This paper updates knowledge on the pathophysiology and treatment of postoperative ileus.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Pathogenesis mainly involves inhibitory neural reflexes and inflammatory mediators released from the site of injury. The most effective method of reducing ileus is thoracic epidural blockade with local anaesthetic. Opioid-sparing analgesic techniques and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents also reduce ileus, as does laparoscopic surgery. Of the prokinetic agents only cisapride is proven beneficial; the effect of early enteral feeding remains unclear. However, postoperative ileus may be greatly reduced when all of the above are combined in a multimodal rehabilitation strategy.

Design of the multicenter Australian study of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in major surgery: the MASTER trial

The Multicenter Australian Study of Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia in Major Surgery (The MASTER Trial) was designed to evaluate the possible benefit of epidural block in improving outcome in high-risk patients. The trial began in 1995 and is scheduled to reach the planned sample size of 900 during 2001. This paper describes the trial design and presents data comparing 455 patients randomized in 21 institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, with 237 patients from the same hospitals who were eligible but not randomized. Nine categories of high-risk patients were defined as entry criteria for the trial. Protocols for ethical review, informed consent, randomization, clinical anesthesia and analgesia, and perioperative management were determined following extensive consultation with anesthesiologists throughout Australia. Clinical and research information was collected in participating hospitals by research staff who may not have been blind to allocation. Decisions about the presence or absence of endpoints were made primarily by a computer algorithm, supplemented by blinded clinical experts. Without unblinding the trial, comparison of eligibility criteria and incidence of endpoints between randomized and nonrandomized patients showed only small differences. We conclude that there is no strong evidence of important demographic or clinical differences between randomized and nonrandomized patients eligible for the MASTER Trial. Thus, the trial results are likely to be broadly generalizable.

Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens on postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, PONV 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), and prevent or reduce postoperative ileus, may reduce postoperative morbidity, duration of hospitalisation and hospital costs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic with regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids, on postoperative gastrointestinal function, postoperative pain, PONV and surgical/anaesthetic complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by computerised searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and by checking the reference lists of trials and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic with systemic or epidural opioids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Collected data included treatment in active (local anaesthetic) and control (opioid based) groups, time to first postoperative stool, time to first postoperative flatus, gastric emptying measured by the paracetamol absorption test, duration of the passage of barium sulphate, pain assessments, use of supplementary analgesics, nausea, vomiting and surgical/anaesthetic complications.

MAIN RESULTS

Most studies in this review involved a small number of patients. Furthermore half of the studies indicated a poor level of methodology in particular regarding blinding and report of withdrawals. Heterogeneity of included studies was substantial. Results consistently showed reduced time to return of gastrointestinal function in the epidural local anaesthetic group compared with groups receiving systemic or epidural opioid (37 hours and 24 hours, respectively). Postoperative pain was comparable. Two studies compared the effect of epidural local anaesthetic with a combination of epidural local anaesthetic and opioid on gastrointestinal function. One study favoured epidural local anaesthetic and one study was indifferent. A meta analysis of five of eight studies comparing the effect of epidural local anaesthetic with a combination of epidural local anaesthetic and opioid on postoperative pain, yielded a reduction in VAS pain scores (0-100 mm) on the first postoperative day of 15 mm, in favour of the combination. No significant differences in PONV were observed between epidural local anaesthetic and opioid based regimens.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Administration of epidural local anaesthetics to patients undergoing laparotomy reduce gastrointestinal paralysis compared with systemic or epidural opioids, with comparable postoperative pain relief. Addition of opioid to epidural local anaesthetic may provide superior postoperative analgesia compared with epidural local anaesthetics alone. The effect of additional epidural opioid on gastrointestinal function is so far unsettled. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effect of combinations of epidural local anaesthetic and opioid with epidural local anaesthetic alone on postoperative gastrointestinal function and pain are warranted.

Continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine-fentanyl versus patient-controlled analgesia with i.v. morphine for postoperative pain relief after knee ligament surgery

BACKGROUND

Both epidural analgesia and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) have been found efficacious after various types of surgery. We compared the efficacy, safety, side effects and patient satisfaction of these methods in a randomized double-blind fashion after elective anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the knee.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients had an epidural catheter placed at the L2-L3 interspace. Spinal anaesthesia with 15 mg of plain bupivacaine 5 mg/ml was performed at the L3-L4 interspace. After surgery the patients were randomly divided into three groups: 19 received a continuous epidural infusion with bupivacaine 1 mg/ml and fentanyl 10 mg/ml (F10), 19 patients received bupivacaine 1 mg/ml and fentanyl 5 microg/ml (F5) and 18 patients received saline (S). The rate of the epidural infusions was 0.1 ml kg(-1) h(-1). Each patient could also use an intravenous (i.v.) PCA device with 40 microg/kg bolus doses of morphine with a lockout period of 10 min and a maximum dose 240 microg kg(-1) h(-1). At the end of surgery ketoprofen 100 mg i.v. was given and continued orally three times a day. Patients were assessed for pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS) at rest and during activity, side effects and satisfaction at 3, 9 and 20 h.

RESULTS

Both epidural infusions (F10, F5) provided better analgesia than epidural saline plus i.v. PCA (S) (P<0.05). There was slightly less nausea in the S group (NS). In spite of the difference in the quality of pain relief, there was no difference between the groups in patient satisfaction regarding analgesic therapy.

CONCLUSION

Epidural infusion of fentanyl (1 microg kg(-1) h(-1) or 0.5 microg kg(-1) h(-1)) and bupivacaine (0.1 mg kg(-1) h(-1)) provided better pain relief but more side effects than intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia after knee ligament surgery. Almost all patients in all groups were satisfied with their pain relief.