The Effect of Regional Anesthesia on Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Pain management after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

Adequate pain control after open esophagectomy is associated with reduced complications, earlier recovery and higher patient satisfaction. While further developing surgical procedures like robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) it is relevant to adapt postoperative pain management. The primary question of this observational survey was whether one of the two standard treatments, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), is superior for pain control after RAMIE as the optimal pain management for these patients still remains unclear. Use of additional analgesics, changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), postoperative complications and duration of intensive care and hospital stay were also analyzed.

Methods

This prospective observational pilot study analyzed 50 patients undergoing RAMIE (postoperative PCA with piritramide or TEA using bupivacaine; each n = 25). Patient reported pain using the numeric rating scale score and differences in FEV1 using a micro spirometer were measured at postoperative day 1, 3 and 7. Additional data of secondary endpoints were collected from patient charts.

Results

Key demographics, comorbidity, clinical and operative variables were equivalently distributed. Patients receiving TEA had lower pain scores and a longer-lasting pain relief. Moreover, TEA was an independent predictive variable for reduced length of hospital stay (HR -3.560 (95% CI: -6.838 to -0.282), p = 0.034).

Conclusions

Although RAMIE leads to reduced surgical trauma, a less invasive pain therapy with PCA appears to be inferior compared to TEA in case of sufficient postoperative analgesia and length of hospital stay. According to the results of this observational pilot study analgesia with TEA provided better and longer-lasting pain relief compared to PCA. Further randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate the optimal postoperative analgesic treatment for RAMIE.

Short-Term Outcomes of Epidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Nationwide Inpatient Data Study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that epidural analgesia (EDA) is associated with a decreased risk of pneumonia and anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, and several guidelines strongly recommend EDA use after esophagectomy. However, the benefit of EDA use in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes between patients with and without EDA undergoing MIE for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent oncologic MIE (April 2014-March 2019) were extracted from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), propensity score matching, and instrumental variable analyses were performed to investigate the associations between EDA use and short-term outcomes, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Among 12,688 eligible patients, EDA was used in 9954 (78.5%) patients. In-hospital mortality, respiratory complications, and anastomotic leakage occurred in 230 (1.8%), 2139 (16.9%), and 1557 (12.3%) patients, respectively. In stabilized IPTW, EDA use was significantly associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.46 [95% confidence interval 0.34-0.61]), respiratory complications (OR 0.74 [0.66-0.84]), and anastomotic leakage (OR 0.77 [0.67-0.88]). EDA use was also associated with decreased prolonged mechanical ventilation, unplanned intubation, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, acetaminophen use, postoperative length of stay, and total hospitalization costs and increased vasopressor use. One-to-three propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses demonstrated equivalent results.

CONCLUSIONS

EDA use in oncologic MIE was associated with low in-hospital mortality as well as decreased respiratory complications, and anastomotic leakage, suggesting the potential advantage of EDA use in MIE.

Is there a relationship between two different anesthetic methods and postoperative length of stay during radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors in China?: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data providing a relationship between the anesthetic method and postoperative length of stay (PLOS) is limited. We aimed to investigate whether general anesthesia alone or combined with epidural anesthesia might affect perioperative risk factors and PLOS for patients undergoing radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 680 patients who underwent a radical esophageal malignant tumor resection in a Chinese hospital from January 01, 2010, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome measure was PLOS, and the secondary outcome was perioperative risk-related parameters that affect PLOS. The independent variable was the type of anesthesia: general anesthesia (GA) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (E-GA). The dependent variable was PLOS. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching to compare the relationships of GA and E-GA with PLOS and identify the perioperative risk factors for PLOS. In this cohort study, the confounders included sociodemographic data, preoperative chemotherapy, coexisting diseases, laboratory parameters, intraoperative variables, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In all patients, the average PLOS was 19.85 ± 12.60 days. There was no significant difference in PLOS between the GA group and the E-GA group either before or after propensity score matching (20.01 days ± 14.90 days vs. 19.79 days ± 11.57 days, P = 0.094, 18.09 ± 9.71 days vs. 19.39 ± 10.75 days, P = 0.145). The significant risk factors for increased PLOS were lung infection (β = 3.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-5.52), anastomotic leakage (β = 25.73, 95% CI: 22.11-29.34), and surgical site infection (β = 9.39, 95% CI: 4.10-14.68) by multivariate regression analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed a stronger association between PLOS and vasoactive drug use, blood transfusions, and open esophagectomy. The results remained essentially the same (stable and reliable) after subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no significant association between the type of anesthesia(GA or E-GA) and PLOS for patients undergoing radical esophageal malignant tumor resection, an association between PLOS and lung infection, anastomotic leakage, and surgical site infection was determined by multivariate regression analysis. A larger sample future study design may verify our results.