Dataset Information

Optimal Perioperative Pain Management in Esophageal Surgery: An Evaluation of Paravertebral Analgesia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

For esophagectomy, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the standard of care for perioperative pain management. Although effective, TEA is associated with moderate to serious adverse events such as hypotension and neurologic complications. Paravertebral analgesia (PVA) may be a safe alternative. The authors hypothesized that TEA and PVA are similar in efficacy for pain treatment in thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared TEA with PVA in two consecutive series of 25 thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomies. In this study, TEA consisted of continuous epidural bupivacaine and sufentanil infusion with a patient-controlled bolus function. In PVA, the catheter was inserted by the surgeon under thoracoscopic vision during surgery. Administration of PVA consisted of continuous paravertebral bupivacaine infusion after a bolus combined with patient-controlled analgesia using intravenous morphine. The primary outcome was the median highest recorded Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) during the 3 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were vasopressor consumption, fluid administration, and length of hospital stay.

Results

In both groups, the median highest recorded NRS was 4 or lower during the first three postoperative days. The patients with PVA had a higher overall NRS (mean difference, 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.44). No differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

For the patients undergoing thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, TEA was superior to PVA, as measured by NRS during the first three postoperative days. However, both modes provided adequate analgesia, with a median highest recorded NRS of 4 or lower. These results could form the basis for a randomized controlled trial.

SUBMITTER: Feenstra ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8460583 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLumbar disc herniation is seen in 5-15% of patients with lumbar back pain and is the most common spine disorder demanding surgical correction. Spinal surgery is one of the most effective management for these patients. However, current surgical techniques still present complications such as chronic pain in 10-40% of all patients who underwent lumbar surgery, which has a significant impact on patients' quality of life. Research studies have shown that transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) may reduce the cumulative dosage of intraoperative anesthetics as well as postoperative pain medications in these patients.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of pTEAS on pain management and clinical outcome in major spinal surgery patients.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to verify the effect of pTEAS in improving pain management and clinical outcome after major spinal surgery. Patients (n = 90) who underwent posterior lumbar fusion surgery were randomized into two groups: pTEAS, (n = 45) and Control (n = 45). The pTEAS group received stimulation on acupoints Zusanli (ST.36), Sanyinjiao (SP.6), Taichong (LR.3), and Neiguan (PC.6). The Control group received the same electrode placement but with no electrical output. Postoperative pain scores, intraoperative outcome, perioperative hemodynamics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and dizziness were recorded.ResultsIntraoperative outcomes of pTEAS group compared with Control: consumption of remifentanil was significantly lower (P < 0.05); heart rate was significantly lower at the end of the operation and after tracheal extubation (P < 0.05); and there was lesser blood loss (P < 0.05). Postoperative outcomes: lower pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score during the first two days after surgery (P < 0.05); and a significantly lower rate of PONV (on postoperative Day-5) and dizziness (on postoperative Day-1 and Day-5) (P < 0.05).ConclusionpTEAS could manage pain effectively and improve clinical outcomes. It could be used as a complementary technique for short-term pain management, especially in patients undergoing major surgeries.Trial registrationChiCTR1800014634, retrospectively registered on 25/01/2018. http://medresman.org/uc/projectsh/projectedit.aspx?proj=183.

Project description:Background and objectivesParavertebral block placement was the main anesthetic technique for modified radical mastectomy in our hospital until February 2014, when its combination with blocks targeting the pectoral musculature was initiated. We compared the analgesic effects of paravertebral blocks with or without blocks targeting the pectoral musculature for modified radical mastectomy.MethodsWe retrospectively collected data from a single surgeon and anesthesiologist from June 1, 2012, to May 31, 2015. Intraoperative sedatives and analgesic requirements, time to the first analgesic request, postoperative analgesic doses, patient satisfaction, and complications were compared.ResultsFifty-four patients received a paravertebral block alone (PECS 0), and 46 received a paravertebral block combined with blocks targeting the pectoral musculature (PECS 1). The highest intraoperative effect-site concentration of propofol was significantly lower in the PECS 1 group than in the PECS 0 group [2.3 (1.5, 2.8) vs 2.5 (1.5, 4) ?g/mL, p = 0.0014]. The intraoperative rescue analgesic dose was significantly lower in the PECS 1 group [0 (0, 25) vs 0 (0, 75) mg of ketamine, p = 0.0384]. Furthermore, the PECS 1 group had a significantly longer time to the first analgesic request [636.5 (15, 720) vs 182.5 (14, 720) min, p = 0.0001]. After further adjustment for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification, chronic pain history, incidence of a superficial cervical plexus block placement, and operation duration, blocks targeting the pectoral musculature were determined to be the only significant factor (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.58; p < 0.0001). Very few patients used potent analgesics including morphine and ketorolac; the cumulative use of morphine or ketorolac was similar in the study groups. However, the incidence of all analgesic use, namely morphine, ketorolac, acetaminophen, and celecoxib, was significantly lower in the PECS 1 group [3.5 (0, 6) vs 5 (0, 12), p < 0.0001].ConclusionsCompared with the placement of a paravertebral block alone, combining blocks targeting the pectoral musculature with a paravertebral block for modified radical mastectomy reduced the sedative and analgesic requirements during operation and provided more effective postoperative analgesia.

Project description:Protective ventilation is associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary complications. However, there are few published data on routine pulmonary management in adult cardiac surgery. The present study's primary objective was to survey pulmonary management in this high-risk population, as practiced by anesthesiologists in France. All 460 registered France-based cardiac anesthesiologists were invited (by e-mail) to participate in an online survey in January-February 2015. The survey's questionnaire was designed to assess current practice in pre-, per-, and postoperative pulmonary management. In all, 198 anesthesiologists (43% of those invited) participated in the survey. Other than during the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) per se, 179 anesthesiologists (91% of respondees) [95% confidence interval (CI): 87-95] used a low-tidal-volume approach (6-8 mL/kg), whereas techniques based on positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment maneuvers vary greatly from 1 anesthesiologist to another. During CPB, 104 (53%) [95% CI: 46-60] anesthesiologists withdrew mechanical ventilation (with disconnection, in some cases) and 97 (49%) [95% CI: 42-56] did not prescribe positive end-expiratory pressure. One hundred sixty-five (83%) [95% CI: 78-88] anesthesiologists stated that a written protocol for peroperative pulmonary management was not available. Twenty (10%) [95% CI: 6-14] and 11 (5%) [95% CI: 2-8] anesthesiologists stated that they did use protocols for ventilator use and recruitment maneuvers, respectively. The preoperative period (pulmonary examinations and prescription of additional assessments) and the postoperative period (extubation, and noninvasive ventilation) periods vary greatly from 1 anesthesiologist to another. The great majority of French cardiac anesthesiologists use a low tidal volume during cardiac surgery (other than during CPB per se). However, pulmonary management procedures varied markedly from 1 anesthesiologist to another. There is a clear need for large clinical studies designed to identify best practice in pulmonary management.