Meta‐analysis of epidural analgesia in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND: The optimal analgesic technique after pancreatoduodenectomy remains under debate. This study aimed to see whether epidural analgesia (EA) has superior clinical outcomes compared with non‐epidural alternatives (N‐EA) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: A systematic review with meta‐analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. On 28 August 2018, relevant literature databases were searched. Primary outcomes were pain scores. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure of initial analgesia, complications, duration of hospital stay and mortality. RESULTS: Three RCTs and eight cohort studies (25 089 patients) were included. N‐EA treatments studied were: intravenous morphine, continuous wound infiltration, bilateral paravertebral thoracic catheters and intrathecal morphine. Patients receiving EA had a marginally lower pain score on days 0–3 after surgery than those receiving intravenous morphine (mean difference (MD) −0·50, 95 per cent c.i. −0·80 to −0·21; P < 0·001) and similar pain scores to patients who had continuous wound infiltration. Treatment failure occurred in 28·5 per cent of patients receiving EA, mainly for haemodynamic instability or inadequate pain control. EA was associated with fewer complications (odds ratio (OR) 0·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·06 to 0·79; P < 0·001), shorter duration of hospital stay (MD −2·69 (95 per cent c.i. −2·76 to −2·62) days; P < 0·001) and lower mortality (OR 0·69, 0·51 to 0 93; P = 0·02) compared with intravenous morphine. CONCLUSION: EA provides marginally lower pain scores in the first postoperative days than intravenous morphine, and appears to be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of hospital stay and less mortality.