Cargando…

A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Rectus sheath catheter analgesia (RSCA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) are both used for analgesia following laparotomy. The aim was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of RSCA with TEA after laparotomy for elective colorectal and urological surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krige, Anton, Brearley, Sarah G., Mateus, Céu, Carlson, Gordon L., Lane, Steven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9092444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35543263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac055
_version_ 1784705142488039424
author Krige, Anton
Brearley, Sarah G.
Mateus, Céu
Carlson, Gordon L.
Lane, Steven
author_facet Krige, Anton
Brearley, Sarah G.
Mateus, Céu
Carlson, Gordon L.
Lane, Steven
author_sort Krige, Anton
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rectus sheath catheter analgesia (RSCA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) are both used for analgesia following laparotomy. The aim was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of RSCA with TEA after laparotomy for elective colorectal and urological surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective midline laparotomy were randomized in a non-blinded fashion to receive RSCA or TEA for postoperative analgesia at a single UK teaching hospital. The primary quantitative outcome measure was dynamic pain score at 24 h after surgery. A nested qualitative study (reported elsewhere) explored the dual primary outcome of patient experience and acceptability. Secondary outcome measures included rest and movement pain scores over 72 h, functional analgesia, analgesia satisfaction, opiate consumption, functional recovery, morbidity, safety, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were randomized: 66 in the RSCA group and 65 in the TEA group. The median (interquartile range; i.q.r.) dynamic pain score at 24 h was significantly lower after TEA than RSCA (33 (11–60) versus 50.5 (24.50–77.25); P = 0.018). Resting pain score at 72 h was significantly lower after RSCA (4.5 (0.25–13.75) versus 12.5 (2–13); P = 0.019). Opiate consumption on postoperative day 3 (median (i.q.r.) morphine equivalent 17 (10–30) mg versus 40 (13.25–88.50) mg; P = 0.038), hypotension, or vasopressor dependency (29.7 versus 49.2 per cent; P = 0.023) and weight gain to day 3 (median (i.q.r.) 0 (−1–2) kg versus 1 (0–3) kg; P = 0.046) were all significantly greater after TEA, compared with RSCA. There were no significant differences between groups in other secondary outcomes, although more participants experienced serious adverse events after TEA compared with RSCA, which was also the more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: TEA provided superior initial postoperative analgesia but only for the first 24 h. By 72 hours RSCA provides superior analgesia, is associated with a lower incidence of unwanted effects, and may be more cost-effective.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9092444
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90924442022-05-12 A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial Krige, Anton Brearley, Sarah G. Mateus, Céu Carlson, Gordon L. Lane, Steven BJS Open Randomized Clinical Trial BACKGROUND: Rectus sheath catheter analgesia (RSCA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) are both used for analgesia following laparotomy. The aim was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of RSCA with TEA after laparotomy for elective colorectal and urological surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective midline laparotomy were randomized in a non-blinded fashion to receive RSCA or TEA for postoperative analgesia at a single UK teaching hospital. The primary quantitative outcome measure was dynamic pain score at 24 h after surgery. A nested qualitative study (reported elsewhere) explored the dual primary outcome of patient experience and acceptability. Secondary outcome measures included rest and movement pain scores over 72 h, functional analgesia, analgesia satisfaction, opiate consumption, functional recovery, morbidity, safety, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were randomized: 66 in the RSCA group and 65 in the TEA group. The median (interquartile range; i.q.r.) dynamic pain score at 24 h was significantly lower after TEA than RSCA (33 (11–60) versus 50.5 (24.50–77.25); P = 0.018). Resting pain score at 72 h was significantly lower after RSCA (4.5 (0.25–13.75) versus 12.5 (2–13); P = 0.019). Opiate consumption on postoperative day 3 (median (i.q.r.) morphine equivalent 17 (10–30) mg versus 40 (13.25–88.50) mg; P = 0.038), hypotension, or vasopressor dependency (29.7 versus 49.2 per cent; P = 0.023) and weight gain to day 3 (median (i.q.r.) 0 (−1–2) kg versus 1 (0–3) kg; P = 0.046) were all significantly greater after TEA, compared with RSCA. There were no significant differences between groups in other secondary outcomes, although more participants experienced serious adverse events after TEA compared with RSCA, which was also the more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: TEA provided superior initial postoperative analgesia but only for the first 24 h. By 72 hours RSCA provides superior analgesia, is associated with a lower incidence of unwanted effects, and may be more cost-effective. Oxford University Press 2022-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9092444/ /pubmed/35543263 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac055 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Randomized Clinical Trial
Krige, Anton
Brearley, Sarah G.
Mateus, Céu
Carlson, Gordon L.
Lane, Steven
A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial
title A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial
title_full A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial
title_short A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial
title_sort comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and rectus sheath catheter analgesia after open midline major abdominal surgery: randomized clinical trial
topic Randomized Clinical Trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9092444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35543263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac055
work_keys_str_mv AT krigeanton acomparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT brearleysarahg acomparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT mateusceu acomparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT carlsongordonl acomparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT lanesteven acomparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT krigeanton comparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT brearleysarahg comparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT mateusceu comparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT carlsongordonl comparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT lanesteven comparisonbetweenthoracicepiduralanalgesiaandrectussheathcatheteranalgesiaafteropenmidlinemajorabdominalsurgeryrandomizedclinicaltrial