Article

Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery

Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Rama 4, Pathumwan, Bangkok, Thailand, 10330.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2005; 100(1):CD004088. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004088.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There are two common techniques for postoperative pain control after intra-abdominal surgery: patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous opioids and continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). It is uncertain which method has better pain control and fewer adverse effects.
The objective of this review was to compare PCA opioid therapy with CEA for pain control after intra-abdominal surgery in terms of analgesic efficacy, side effects, patient satisfaction and surgical outcome by meta-analysis of the relevant trials.
We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2002), EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2002), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.
Randomized controlled trials of adult patients after intra-abdominal surgery comparing the effect of two pain control regimens in terms of analgesic efficacy and side effects. In the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) group the patient should be able to operate the device himself. In the continuous epidural analgesia group there was no PCA device.
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.
Nine studies involving 711 participants were included. The PCA group had a higher pain visual analogue scale than the CEA group during 6, 24 and 72 hour periods. The weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval of resting pain was 1.74 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.19), 0.99 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.33), and 0.63 (95% CI 0.24 to 1.01), respectively. The length of hospital stay and other adverse effects were not statistically different except that the incidence of pruritus was lower in the PCA group, odds ratio of 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.64).
CEA is superior to opioid PCA in relieving postoperative pain for up to 72 hours in patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery, but it is associated with a higher incidence of pruritus. There is insufficient evidence to draw comparisons about the other advantages and disadvantages of these two methods of pain relief.

1 Follower
 · 
53 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article aims to provide the first systematic review of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for esophagectomy and generate guidelines. ERAS programs use multimodal approaches to reduce complications and accelerate recovery. Although ERAS is well established in colorectal surgery, experience after esophagectomy has been minimal. However, esophagectomy remains an extremely high-risk operation, commonly performed in patients with significant comorbidities. Consequently, ERAS may have a significant role to play in improving outcomes. No guidelines or reviews have been published in esophagectomy. We undertook a systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases in July 2012. The literature was searched for descriptions of ERAS in esophagectomy. Components of successful ERAS programs were determined, and when not directly available for esophagectomy, extrapolation from related evidence was made. Graded recommendations for each component were then generated. Six retrospective studies have assessed ERAS for esophagectomy, demonstrating favorable morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Methodological quality is, however, low. Overall, there is little direct evidence for components of ERAS, with much derived from nonesophageal thoracoabdominal surgery. ERAS in principle seems logical and safe for esophagectomy. However, the underlying evidence is poor and lacking. Despite this, a number of recommendations for practice and research can be made.
    Annals of surgery 11/2013; 259(3). DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000000349 · 7.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain is the most common complaint of patients on the first day after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This clinical trial compared the effects of intraperitoneal (IP) bupivacaine and intravenous (IV) pethidine on this pain. Forty-eight patients who underwent LC were randomly assigned to 2 groups of IP bupivacaine and IV pethidine. Postoperative pain, oral analgesic consumption, peak expiratory flow rate, and presence of nausea or vomiting was recorded at baseline and 4, 8, and 24 hours after surgery. Patients who received IP bupivacaine showed a significantly lower pain score (P=0.022) and improved peak expiratory flow rate (P=0.006), and received lower doses of ibuprofen (P=0.003) within the first 24 hours after surgery. Likewise, the presence of nausea/vomiting was significantly lower in bupivacaine groups 1 and 4 hours after surgery (P=0.003 and 0.005, respectively). Our results indicate that IP instillation of bupivacaine is more beneficial than traditional IV pethidine for pain reduction after LC.
    Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques 02/2013; 23(1):88-92. DOI:10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182755688 · 0.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain is experienced by the overwhelming majority of patients during their intensive care unit stay, but it remains an underappreciated problem. To effectively treat pain, it must be detected and quantified using a validated assessment tool. It is acknowledged that optimal pain relief may be difficult to achieve given the complex interplay of coexisting medical conditions and the environment in which care is provided. Nonetheless, by following structured approaches to pain, resource consumption may be reduced, and even improved survival may be realized. This review covers practices and techniques specific to addressing and treating pain in the adult intensive care environment. Traditional pharmacological approaches including opiate and nonopiate medications are reviewed, as are regional anesthetic techniques and nonpharmacological approaches used for controlling pain.
    Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 04/2013; 34(2):189-200. DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1342973 · 3.02 Impact Factor