A comparison of caudal epidural bupivacaine with adrenaline and bupivacaine with adrenaline and pethidine for operative and postoperative analgesia in infants and children

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).

Regional anaesthesia in neonates, infants and children: an educational review

Prophylactic analgesia with local anaesthesia is widely used in children and has a good safety record. Performing regional blocks in anaesthetised children is a safe and generally accepted practice. When compared with adults, lower concentrations of local anaesthetics are sufficient in children; the onset of a block occurs more rapidly but the duration is usually shorter. Local anaesthetics have a greater volume of distribution, a lower clearance and a higher free (non-protein-bound) fraction. The recommended maximum dose has to be calculated for every individual. Peripheral blocks provide analgesia restricted to the site of surgery, and some of them have a very long duration of action. Abdominal wall blocks, such as transverse abdominis plane or ilio-inguinal nerve block, should be performed with the aid of ultrasound. Caudal anaesthesia is the single most important technique. Ropivacaine 0.2% or levobupivacaine 0.125 to 0.175% at roughly 1 ml  kg⁻¹ is adequate for most indications. Clonidine and morphine can be used to prolong the duration of analgesia. Ultrasound is not essential for performing caudal blocks, but it may be helpful in case of anomalies suspected at palpation and for teaching purposes. The use of paediatric epidural catheters will probably decline in the future because of the potential complications.

Recent developments in paediatric neuraxial blocks

Paediatric anaesthesia and paediatric regional anaesthesia are intertwined. Almost all surgeries unless contradicted could be and should be supplemented with a regional block. The main objective of this review is to elaborate on the recent advances of the central neuraxial blocks, such as application of ultrasound guidance and electrical stimulation in the pursuit of safety and an objective end point. This review also takes account of the traditional technique and understand the benefits as well the risk of each as compared with the recent technique. The recent trends in choosing the most appropriate peripheral block for a given surgery thereby sparing the central neuroaxis is considered. A penile block for circumcision or a sciatic block for unilateral foot surgery, rather than caudal epidural would have a better risk benefit equation. Readers will find a special mention on the recent thoughts on continuous epidural analgesia in paediatrics, especially its rise and fall, yet its unique importance. Lastly, the issue of block placements under sedation or general anaesthesia with its implication in this special population is dealt with. We conducted searches in MEDLINE (PubMed) and assessed the relevance of the abstracts of citations identified from literature searches. The search was carried out in English, for last 10 years, with the following key words: Recent advances in paediatric regional anaesthesia; ultrasound guidance for central neuraxial blocks in children; role of electrical stimulation in neuraxial blocks in children; complications in neuraxial block. Full-text articles of potentially relevant abstracts were retrieved for further review.

Caudal blocks

Caudal anesthesia is the single most important pediatric regional anesthetic technique. The technique is relatively easy to learn (1), has a remarkable safety record (2), and can be used for a large variety of procedures. The technique has been reviewed in the English (3) and French (4) literature, as well as in German guidelines (5) and in pediatric anesthesia textbooks (6).

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.