Double-masked Randomized Trial Comparing Alternate Combinations of Intraoperative Anesthesia and Postoperative Analgesia in Abdominal Aortic Surgery

Background : Improvement in patient outcome and reduced use of medical resources may result from using epidural anesthesia and analgesia as compared with general anesthesia and intravenous opioids, although the relative importance of intraoperative versus postoperative technique has not been studied. This prospective, double-masked, randomized clinical trial was designed to compare alternate combinations of intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with respect to postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery of the abdominal aorta.

Methods : One hundred sixty-eight patients undergoing surgery of the abdominal aorta were randomly assigned to receive either thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with a light general anesthesia or general anesthesia alone intraoperatively and either intravenous or epidural patient-controlled analgesia postoperatively (four treatment groups). Patient-controlled analgesia was continued for at least 72 h. Protocols were used to standardize perioperative medical management and to preserve masking intraoperatively and postoperatively. A uniform surveillance strategy was used for the identification of prospectively defined postoperative complications. Outcome evaluation included postoperative hospital length of stay, direct medical costs, selected postoperative morbidities, and postoperative recovery milestones.

Results : Length of stay and direct medical costs for patients surviving to discharge were similar among the four treatment groups. Postoperative outcomes were similar among the four treatment groups with respect to death, myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia, reoperation, pneumonia, and renal failure. Epidural patient-controlled analgesia was associated with a significantly shorter time to extubation (P = 0.002). Times to intensive care unit discharge, ward admission, first bowel sounds, first flatus, tolerating clear liquids, tolerating regular diet, and independent ambulation were similar among the four treatment groups. Postoperative pain scores were also similar among the four treatment groups.     

Thoracic epidural versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial on length of hospital stay and patient-perceived quality of recovery

BACKGROUND: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia reduces stress response and pain scores and may improve outcome after cardiac surgery. This prospective, randomized trial was designed to compare the effectiveness of patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia with patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine on postoperative hospital length of stay and patients' perception of their quality of recovery after cardiac surgery. METHODS: One hundred thirteen patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to receive either combined thoracic epidural analgesia and general anesthesia followed by patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia or general anesthesia followed by to patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine. Postoperative length of stay, time to eligibility for hospital discharge, pain and sedation scores, degree of ambulation, lung volumes, and organ morbidities were evaluated. A validated quality of recovery score was used to measure postoperative health status. RESULTS: Length of stay and time to eligibility for hospital discharge were similar between the groups. Study groups differed neither in postoperative global quality of recovery score nor in five dimensions of quality of recovery score. Time to extubation was shorter (P < 0.001) and consumption of anesthetics was lower in the patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia group. Pain relief, degree of sedation, ambulation, and lung volumes were similar between the study groups. There was a trend for lower incidences of pneumonia (P = 0.085) and confusion (P = 0.10) in the patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia group, whereas cardiac, renal, and neurologic outcomes were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elective cardiac surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia combined with general anesthesia followed by patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia offers no major advantage with respect to hospital length of stay, quality of recovery, or morbidity when compared with general anesthesia alone followed by to patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine.     

Thoracic Epidural versus Intravenous Patient-controlled Analgesia after Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Length of Hospital Stay and Patient-perceived Quality of Recovery

Background: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia reduces stress response and pain scores and may improve outcome after cardiac surgery. This prospective, randomized trial was designed to compare the effectiveness of patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia with patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine on postoperative hospital length of stay and patients' perception of their quality of recovery after cardiac surgery.

Methods: One hundred thirteen patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to receive either combined thoracic epidural analgesia and general anesthesia followed by patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia or general anesthesia followed by to patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine. Postoperative length of stay, time to eligibility for hospital discharge, pain and sedation scores, degree of ambulation, lung volumes, and organ morbidities were evaluated. A validated quality of recovery score was used to measure postoperative health status.

Results: Length of stay and time to eligibility for hospital discharge were similar between the groups. Study groups differed neither in postoperative global quality of recovery score nor in five dimensions of quality of recovery score. Time to extubation was shorter (P < 0.001) and consumption of anesthetics was lower in the patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia group. Pain relief, degree of sedation, ambulation, and lung volumes were similar between the study groups. There was a trend for lower incidences of pneumonia (P = 0.085) and confusion (P = 0.10) in the patient-controlled thoracic epidural analgesia group, whereas cardiac, renal, and neurologic outcomes were similar between the groups.     

Comparison of intravenous or epidural patient-controlled analgesia in the elderly after major abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), using an opioid either alone or in combination with a local anesthetic, are two major advances in the management of pain after major surgery. However, these techniques have been evaluated poorly in elderly people. This prospective, randomized study compared the effectiveness on postoperative pain and safety of PCEA and PCA after major abdominal surgery in the elderly patient. METHODS: Seventy patients older than 70 yr of age and undergoing major abdominal surgery were assigned randomly to receive either combined epidural analgesia and general anesthesia followed by postoperative PCEA, using a mixture of 0.125% bupivacaine and sufentanil (PCEA group), or general anesthesia followed by PCA with intravenous morphine (PCA group). Pain intensity was tested three times daily using a visual analog scale. Postoperative evaluation included mental status, cardiorespiratory and gastrointestinal functions, and patient satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Pain relief was better at rest (P = 0.001) and after coughing (P = 0.002) in the PCEA group during the 5 postoperative days. Satisfaction scores were better in the PCEA group. Although incidence of delirium was comparable in the PCA and PCEA groups (24% vs. 26%, respectively), mental status was improved on the fourth and fifth postoperative days in the PCEA group. The PCEA group recovered bowel function more quickly than did the PCA group. Cardiopulmonary complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: After major abdominal surgery in the elderly patient, patient-controlled analgesia, regardless of the route (epidural or parenteral), is effective. The epidural route using local anesthetics and an opioid provides better pain relief and improves mental status and bowel activity.     

Comparison of Intravenous or Epidural Patient-controlled Analgesia in the Elderly after Major Abdominal Surgery

Background: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), using an opioid either alone or in combination with a local anesthetic, are two major advances in the management of pain after major surgery. However, these techniques have been evaluated poorly in elderly people. This prospective, randomized study compared the effectiveness on postoperative pain and safety of PCEA and PCA after major abdominal surgery in the elderly patient.

Methods: Seventy patients older than 70 yr of age and undergoing major abdominal surgery were assigned randomly to receive either combined epidural analgesia and general anesthesia followed by postoperative PCEA, using a mixture of 0.125% bupivacaine and sufentanil (PCEA group), or general anesthesia followed by PCA with intravenous morphine (PCA group). Pain intensity was tested three times daily using a visual analog scale. Postoperative evaluation included mental status, cardiorespiratory and gastrointestinal functions, and patient satisfaction scores.

Results: Pain relief was better at rest (P = 0.001) and after coughing (P = 0.002) in the PCEA group during the 5 postoperative days. Satisfaction scores were better in the PCEA group. Although incidence of delirium was comparable in the PCA and PCEA groups (24%vs. 26%, respectively), mental status was improved on the fourth and fifth postoperative days in the PCEA group. The PCEA group recovered bowel function more quickly than did the PCA group. Cardiopulmonary complications were similar in the two groups.     

Epidural anesthesia during upper abdominal surgery provides better postoperative analgesia

Since repeated noxious stimuli may sensitize neuropathic pain receptors of the spinal cord, we tested the hypothesis that the appropriate blockade of surgical stimuli with epidural anesthesia during upper abdominal surgery would be beneficial for postoperative analgesia. Thirty-six adult patients undergoing either elective gastrectomy or open cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to receive either inhalational general anesthesia alone (group G) or epidural anesthesia along with light general anesthesia (group E) throughout the surgery. Postoperative pain management consisted of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with bupivacaine accompanied by the continuous infusion of buprenorphine. To assess postoperative pain, a visual analogue scale (VAS) was employed at 2, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. While there was no significant difference in the bupivacaine dose, more patients undergoing gastrectomy in group G required supplemental analgesics than those in group E, and the VAS scores in group E demonstrated significantly better postoperative analgesia compared to group G after both types of surgery. Thus, an appropriate epidural blockade during upper abdominal surgery likely provides better postoperative pain relief.     

Postoperative wound oxygen tension with epidural or intravenous analgesia: a prospective,randomized, single-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Adequate tissue oxygen tension is an essential requirement for surgical-wound healing. The authors tested the hypothesis that epidural anesthesia and analgesia increases wound tissue oxygen tension compared with intravenous morphine analgesia. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, blind clinical study, the authors allocated patients having major abdominal surgery (n = 32) to receive combined general and epidural anesthesia with postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (epidural group, n = 16), or general anesthesia alone with postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (intravenous group, n = 16). An oxygen sensor and a temperature sensor were placed subcutaneously in the wound before closure. Wound oxygen tension (P(w)O(2)) and temperature were measured continuously for 24 h. Other variables affecting wound tissue oxygenation and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were also documented. RESULTS: Despite epidural patients having lower body temperatures at the end of surgery (35.7 +/- 0.3) versus 36.3 +/- 0.5 degrees C, = 0.004), they had significantly higher mean P(w)O(2) over the 24 h period, compared with the intravenous group (64.4 +/- 14 vs. 50.7 +/- 15) mmHg, mean (SD), 95% CI difference, -22 to -5, = 0.002). Area under the P(w)O(2) -24 h time curve was also significantly higher in the epidural group (930 +/- 278 vs. 749 +/- 257) mmHg x h, 95% CI difference -344 to -18, = 0.03). VAS pain scores at rest and moving were significantly lower in the epidural group at all times. CONCLUSION: Epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia for major abdominal surgery increases wound tissue oxygen tension compared with general anesthesia and intravenous morphine analgesia.     

Blood rheology in PCA and PCEA after total knee arthroplasty

The rheological events in 2 groups of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were compared--15 patients were given general anesthesia and controlled their postoperative pain applying intravenous patient-controlled analgesia; 17 individuals received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and controlled their postoperative pain by patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Twenty-four and 48 hours after surgery, the patient-controlled analgesia group showed a significant increase in whole-blood viscosity at the 3 shear rates (P < .01), as well as in relative viscosity at both periods (P < .001 and .01, respectively). Similar findings were observed for red blood cell aggregation (P < .001) and fibrinogen level (P < .001). These values were less expressed in the PCEA group, particularly 48 hours after surgery (P < .01), and the patients showed lower scores on the visual analog pain scale. The better results observed in the PCEA group favor the application of epidural anesthesia and PCEA analgesia in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.     

Comparison of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia with morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for perioperative analgesia and recovery after open colon surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with morphine intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Five university-affiliated hospitals. PATIENTS: 41 patients undergoing colon surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either standardized combined epidural/general anesthesia followed by PCEA with ropivacaine 0.2% and fentanyl (2 microg/mL) or standardized general anesthesia followed by morphine IV PCA. All patients participated in a standardized postoperative clinical pathway. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Analgesia was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Postoperative recovery was assessed by completion of prospectively defined discharge milestones and time until discharge. Statistical analyses included nonparametric and contingency table analyses. The PCEA group had better analgesia (> 50% reduction in pain scores, assessed both at rest and during a cough) for the first 3 days after surgery (p < 0.0,005). The PCEA group achieved discharge milestones approximately 36 hours faster (p < 0.002), but time until discharge was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine-fentanyl PCEA provides superior analgesia, reduced opioid requirement, and more rapid recovery after colon surgery.     

Intravenöse versus thorakale-epidurale patientenkontrollierte Analgesie bei ausgedehnten Oberbauch- und Thoraxeingriffen

Background: Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA-IV) has markedly improved postoperative pain-relief. Alternatively, peridural anesthesia has been used successfully in high risk patients with the disadvantage of a more intense postoperative care. In this study we compared the applicability of intravenous vs. peridural patient-controlled analgesia on a general ward. Methods: In a prospective double blinded study 40 patients were randomized after extensive thoracic or abdominal surgery in two groups and received either intravenous PCA (n?=?20) or epidural PCA (n?=?20). Postoperative monitoring was performed on the general ward by specifically trained nurses. Physiological data, neurological status, the effects of the analgesia and complications were registered before and 48 hours after surgery. Pain intensity was determined by using the visual analog scale (VAS). For the evaluation of wellness and cognitive efficacy psychological tests were performed. Results: Our results show that epidural PCA without administration of a basal rate is a safe method and can be performed on a general ward. Relevant postoperative complications or negative side effects were not registered in both groups. Sufficient analgesia was achieved with both methods. Patients treated with PCA-PDK had a significantly better score regarding vigilance and subjective wellness when compared to patients in the PCA-IV group. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that epidural PCA can be used on a general surgical ward as an alternative method compared to intravenous PCA. PCA-PDK may be advantageous over intravenous PCA since both techniques require similar intense monitoring and side effects in the PCA-PDK group appear to be less.     

Intraoperative Epidural Analgesia Combined with Ketamine Provides Effective Preventive Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Major Digestive Surgery

Background: As a broader definition of preemptive analgesia, preventive analgesia aims to prevent the sensitization of central nervous system, hence the development of pathologic pain after tissular injury. To demonstrate benefits from preventive treatment, objective measurement of postoperative pain such as wound hyperalgesia and persistent pain should be evaluated. The current study assessed the role and timing of epidural analgesia in this context.

Methods: In a randomized, double-blinded trial, 85 patients scheduled to undergo neoplastic colonic resection were included. All the patients received a thoracic epidural catheter, systemic ketamine at a antihyperalgesic dose, and general anesthesia. Continuous infusion of analgesics belonging to the same class was administered by either intravenous or epidural route before incision until 72 h after surgery. Patients were allocated to four groups to receive intraoperative intravenous lidocaine-sufentanil-clonidine or epidural bupivacaine-sufentanil-clonidine followed postoperatively by either intravenous (lidocaine-morphine-clonidine) or epidural (bupivacaine-sufentanil-clonidine) patient-controlled analgesia. Postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale), analgesic consumption, wound area of punctuate hyperalgesia, residual pain, and analgesics needed from 2 weeks until 12 months were recorded.

Results: Analgesic requirements, visual analog scale scores, and area of hyperalgesia were significantly higher in the intravenous treatment group (intravenous-intravenous), and more patients reported residual pain from 2 weeks until 1 yr (28%). Although postoperative pain measurements did not differ, postoperative epidural treatment (intravenous-epidural) was less effective to prevent residual pain at 1 yr (11%; P = 0.2 with intravenous-intravenous group) than intraoperative one (epidural-epidural and epidural-intravenous groups) (0%; P = 0.01 with intravenous-intravenous group).     

Intraoperative epidural analgesia combined with ketamine provides effective preventive analgesia in patients undergoing major digestive surgery

BACKGROUND: As a broader definition of preemptive analgesia, preventive analgesia aims to prevent the sensitization of central nervous system, hence the development of pathologic pain after tissular injury. To demonstrate benefits from preventive treatment, objective measurement of postoperative pain such as wound hyperalgesia and persistent pain should be evaluated. The current study assessed the role and timing of epidural analgesia in this context. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blinded trial, 85 patients scheduled to undergo neoplastic colonic resection were included. All the patients received a thoracic epidural catheter, systemic ketamine at a antihyperalgesic dose, and general anesthesia. Continuous infusion of analgesics belonging to the same class was administered by either intravenous or epidural route before incision until 72 h after surgery. Patients were allocated to four groups to receive intraoperative intravenous lidocaine-sufentanil-clonidine or epidural bupivacaine-sufentanil-clonidine followed postoperatively by either intravenous (lidocaine-morphine-clonidine) or epidural (bupivacaine-sufentanil-clonidine) patient-controlled analgesia. Postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale), analgesic consumption, wound area of punctuate hyperalgesia, residual pain, and analgesics needed from 2 weeks until 12 months were recorded. RESULTS: Analgesic requirements, visual analog scale scores, and area of hyperalgesia were significantly higher in the intravenous treatment group (intravenous-intravenous), and more patients reported residual pain from 2 weeks until 1 yr (28%). Although postoperative pain measurements did not differ, postoperative epidural treatment (intravenous-epidural) was less effective to prevent residual pain at 1 yr (11%; P = 0.2 with intravenous-intravenous group) than intraoperative one (epidural-epidural and epidural-intravenous groups) (0%; P = 0.01 with intravenous-intravenous group). CONCLUSION: Combined with an antihyperalgesic dose of ketamine, intraoperative epidural analgesia provides effective preventive analgesia after major digestive surgery.     

Pain relief after esophagectomy: Thoracic epidural analgesia is better than parenteral opioids.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative pain relief and pulmonary function in patients after thoracoabdominal esophagectomy treated by continuing perioperative thoracic epidural anesthesia or changing to parenteral opioids. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients undergoing thoracoabdominal esophagectomy. INTERVENTIONS: General anesthesia was combined with thoracic epidural anesthesia during surgery. The patients either continued with thoracic epidural analgesia (n = 18) or were switched to patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine (n = 15) for 5 postoperative days. Pain scores were estimated twice daily, at rest and after mobilization. Peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume, and vital capacity were measured the day before surgery, postoperative day 2, and postoperative day 6. Adverse events and complications were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At rest, there were no differences in pain relief between the groups. Pain scores at mobilization showed a significantly lower value in the epidural group (p < 0.027). No intergroup differences were found regarding pulmonary function, which decreased on postoperative day 2, but was improved on postoperative day 6. CONCLUSION: Continuation of intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia for 5 postoperative days provides better pain relief at mobilization compared with a switch to patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine. There was no intergroup difference in the impact on measures of pulmonary function.     

Patient-controlled on-demand epidural fentanyl

A prospective, open, clinical trial is described in which 20 patients having upper abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to receive fentanyl for postoperative analgesia by patient-controlled demand analgesic computer by either the epidural or intravenous route. Hourly pain, sedation and nausea scores were very similar in the two groups during the first 24 hours after surgery. What few differences there were favoured the epidural group. There was a highly significant difference in fentanyl consumption between the two groups, with the intravenous group demanding consistently more than twice as much as the epidural group.     

Postoperative Wound Oxygen Tension with Epidural or Intravenous Analgesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-blind Clinical Trial

Background: Adequate tissue oxygen tension is an essential requirement for surgical-wound healing. The authors tested the hypothesis that epidural anesthesia and analgesia increases wound tissue oxygen tension compared with intravenous morphine analgesia.

Methods: In a prospective, randomized, blind clinical study, the authors allocated patients having major abdominal surgery (n = 32) to receive combined general and epidural anesthesia with postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (epidural group, n = 16), or general anesthesia alone with postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (intravenous group, n = 16). An oxygen sensor and a temperature sensor were placed subcutaneously in the wound before closure. Wound oxygen tension (Pwo2) and temperature were measured continuously for 24 h. Other variables affecting wound tissue oxygenation and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were also documented.

Results: Despite epidural patients having lower body temperatures at the end of surgery (35.7 +/- 0.3) versus 36.3 +/- 0.5 [degrees]C, P = 0.004), they had significantly higher mean Pwo2 over the 24 h period, compared with the intravenous group (64.4 +/- 14 vs. 50.7 +/- 15) mmHg, mean (SD), 95% CI difference, -22 to -5, P = 0.002). Area under the Pwo2 -24 h time curve was also significantly higher in the epidural group (930 +/- 278 vs. 749 +/- 257) mmHg x h, 95% CI difference -344 to -18, P = 0.03). VAS pain scores at rest and moving were significantly lower in the epidural group at all times.     

Postoperative analgesia after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a double-blind comparison between low thoracic epidural and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain after radical retropubic prostatectomy can be severe unless adequately treated. Low thoracic epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia were compared in this double-blind, randomized study. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either low thoracic epidural analgesia (group E) or patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (group P) for postoperative pain relief. All patients had general anesthesia combined with thoracic epidural analgesia during the operation. Postoperatively, patients in group E received an infusion of 1 mg/ml ropivacaine, 2 microg/ml fentanyl, and 2 microg/ml adrenaline, 10 ml/h during 48 h epidurally, and a placebo patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump intravenously. Patients in group P received a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump with morphine intravenously and 10 ml/h placebo epidurally. Pain, the primary outcome variable, was measured using the numeric rating scale at rest (incision pain and "deep" visceral pain) and on coughing. Secondary outcome variables included gastrointestinal function, respiratory function, mobilization, and full recovery. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36 questionnaire, and plasma concentration of fentanyl was measured in five patients to exclude a systemic effect of fentanyl. RESULTS: Incisional pain and pain on coughing were lower in group E compared with group P at 2-24 h, as was deep pain between 3 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.05). Maximum expiratory pressure was greater in group E at 4 and 24 h (P < 0.05) compared with group P. No difference in time to home discharge was found between the groups. The mean plasma fentanyl concentration varied from 0.2 to 0.3 ng/ml during 0-48 h postoperatively. At 1 month, the scores on emotional role, physical functioning, and general health of the Short Form-36 were higher in group E compared with group P. However, no group x time interaction was found in the Short Form-36. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found evidence for better pain relief and improved expiratory muscle function in patients receiving low thoracic epidural analgesia compared with patient-controlled analgesia for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Low thoracic epidural analgesia can be recommended as a good method for postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery.     

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia after abdominal surgery: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine.

In this randomized, double-blinded study we sought to assess the analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine and bupivacaine in combination with sufentanil and the efficacy of ropivacaine alone after major abdominal surgery. Sixty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery received standardized general anesthesia combined with epidural thoracic analgesia. They were allocated to one of three groups: the BS group received postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia with 0.125% bupivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; the RS group received 0.125% ropivacaine plus 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil; and the R group received 0.2% ropivacaine, with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia device set at bolus 2-3 mL and background infusion 3-5 mL/h. Visual analog scale scores were significantly lower during coughing in the BS group compared with the RS and R groups and in the RS group compared with the R group. The BS group required significantly less local anesthetic (milligrams per day) during the first three postoperative days compared with the RS and R groups, and the RS group, significantly less than the R group. No major side effects were noted in any group. We conclude that, after major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with bupivacaine than with ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics are used in a mixture with sufentanil. Ropivacaine alone was less effective than ropivacaine in combination with sufentanil. IMPLICATIONS: After major abdominal surgery, thoracic epidural analgesia was more effective with 0.125% bupivacaine than with 0.125% ropivacaine when these two local anesthetics were used in a mixture with 0.5 microg/mL sufentanil. Ropivacaine 0.2% alone was less effective than 0.125% ropivacaine combined with sufentanil.     

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.     

A randomized comparison of the effects of continuous thoracic epidural analgesia and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after posterior spinal fusion in adolescents

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pain and gastrointestinal dysfunction are primary factors that delay recovery after posterior spinal fusion. Previous reports suggest that the choice of analgesic management may effect the course of recovery. This prospective, randomized study compared continuous thoracic epidural analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia in the postoperative care of adolescents undergoing posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. METHODS: Patients between 11 and 18 years of age were randomized to receive continuous thoracic epidural analgesia with bupivacaine-fentanyl (CEA, n = 17) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine sulfate (n = 16). After surgery under general anesthesia, pain intensity was evaluated using a self-report visual analog scale (VAS). Postoperative time to resumption of bowel sounds, liquid intake, and side effects were also recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in VAS pain scores, side effects, or time to resumption of liquid intake. There was a significant difference (P = .0089) between groups in return of bowel sounds, which occurred earlier in patients receiving CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous epidural analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia are comparably effective and safe after posterior spinal fusion. Return of bowel sounds occurred significantly more rapidly in patients receiving CEA postoperatively.     

不同术后镇痛方式对手术患者恢复期心肌缺血的影响

目的研究硬膜外镇痛与静脉镇痛对手术患者恢复期心肌缺血的影响。方法39例行择期腹部手术的患者随机分成两组:硬膜外镇痛组(R组),16例,术中全麻复合硬膜外麻醉,术后硬膜外镇痛;静脉镇痛组(M组),23例,术中全麻,术后静脉吗啡镇痛。维持两组Price-Henry疼痛评分≤3分。所有患者接受24 h动态心电图监测48 h。两组患者在入手术室安静平卧10 min、入SICU后2 h、术后第1天晨、术后第2天晨采集静脉血测定皮质醇浓度。结果术后48 h内,R组心肌缺血发生率比M组低(P<0.05),在术后各时点,R组的皮质醇浓度低于M组(P<0.05)。结论与静脉镇痛相比较,硬膜外镇痛明显减轻应激反应,减少术后心肌缺血发生率。