Lior Heller1, Alicia M Kowalski, Caimiano Wei, Charles E Butler. 1. Houston, Texas From the Departments of Plastic Surgery and Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine and the Division of Quantitative Sciences, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: : This study assessed the efficacy of a continuous infusion pump system for postoperative pain control at muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap donor sites. METHODS: : In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, a dual-catheter continuous infusion pump system was placed in the muscle-sparing TRAM flap donor-site area in all patients. Bupivacaine (0.375%; continuous infusion pump group) or isotonic saline (control group) was infused at 4 ml/hour. All patients also had a patient-controlled anesthesia system delivering intravenous narcotics on demand. Pain scores, patient satisfaction, narcotic use, milestones of surgical recovery, and side effects of narcotics were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: : Forty-eight patients were included in the study (23 continuous infusion pump patients and 25 control patients). The continuous infusion patients used less mean patient-controlled anesthesia narcotic during the first 2 postoperative days (78.0 mg versus 42.7 mg; p = 0.019) and transitioned earlier to oral narcotics than did control patients. Patients' overall pain satisfaction scores were significantly better in the continuous infusion group than in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to overall abdominal pain intensity scores, total narcotic use, length of hospitalization, incidence of narcotic side effects, or milestones of surgical recovery. CONCLUSIONS: : The continuous infusion pump system appears to be a safe and effective method for postoperative donor-site pain management in TRAM flap breast reconstruction patients and should be considered for postoperative donor-site pain management. However, continuous infusion pump local anesthetic delivery to the muscle-sparing TRAM flap donor site did not eliminate narcotic use for pain control.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: : This study assessed the efficacy of a continuous infusion pump system for postoperative pain control at muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap donor sites. METHODS: : In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, a dual-catheter continuous infusion pump system was placed in the muscle-sparing TRAM flap donor-site area in all patients. Bupivacaine (0.375%; continuous infusion pump group) or isotonic saline (control group) was infused at 4 ml/hour. All patients also had a patient-controlled anesthesia system delivering intravenous narcotics on demand. Pain scores, patient satisfaction, narcotic use, milestones of surgical recovery, and side effects of narcotics were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: : Forty-eight patients were included in the study (23 continuous infusion pump patients and 25 control patients). The continuous infusion patients used less mean patient-controlled anesthesia narcotic during the first 2 postoperative days (78.0 mg versus 42.7 mg; p = 0.019) and transitioned earlier to oral narcotics than did control patients. Patients' overall pain satisfaction scores were significantly better in the continuous infusion group than in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to overall abdominal pain intensity scores, total narcotic use, length of hospitalization, incidence of narcotic side effects, or milestones of surgical recovery. CONCLUSIONS: : The continuous infusion pump system appears to be a safe and effective method for postoperative donor-site pain management in TRAM flap breast reconstruction patients and should be considered for postoperative donor-site pain management. However, continuous infusion pump local anesthetic delivery to the muscle-sparing TRAM flap donor site did not eliminate narcotic use for pain control.
Authors: Lourdes Ferreira Laso; Amanda López Picado; Fernando Antoñanzas Villar; Laura Lamata de la Orden; Mar Ceballos Garcia; Carolina Ibañez López; Lorena Pipaon Ruilope; Felix Lamata Hernandez; Cesar Valero Martinez; Felipe Aizpuru; Roberto Hernandez Chaves Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Michael C Edwards; Evan Sorokin; Mark Brzezienski; Farzad R Nahai; Richard Scranton; Holly Wall; Simeon Wall; Stephan Finical; Kevin Smith Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2015 Impact factor: 0.947
Authors: Eran D Bar-Meir; Janet H Yueh; Philip E Hess; Christoph E A Hartmann; Munique Maia; Adam M Tobias; Bernard T Lee Journal: Eplasty Date: 2010-09-15
Authors: Saba Motakef; Wendy W Wong; Michael J Ingargiola; David Nguyen; Izabela A Galdyn; Hahns Y Kim; Subhas C Gupta Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2017-11-20
Authors: Arezoo Astanehe; Claire Temple-Oberle; Markus Nielsen; William de Haas; Robert Lindsay; Jennifer Matthews; David C McKenzie; Justin Yeung; Christiaan Schrag Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2018-01-18
Authors: Toni Zhong; Marie Ojha; Shaghayegh Bagher; Kate Butler; Anne C O'Neill; Stuart A McCluskey; Hance Clarke; Stefan O P Hofer; Coimbatore Srinivas Journal: Trials Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ariel Clare Johnson; Salih Colakoglu; Angela Reddy; Clara Marie Kerwin; Roland A Flores; Matthew L Iorio; David W Mathes Journal: Anesth Pain Med Date: 2020-10-23