Colleen Rivard1, Elizabeth L Dickson2, Rachel Isaksson Vogel3, Peter A Argenta2, Deanna Teoh2. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, USA. Electronic address: clrivard@umn.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, USA. 3. Masonic Cancer Center, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how anesthesia choice in women undergoing laparotomy for gynecologic malignancy affects pain control and narcotic use. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of women who underwent laparotomy for suspected gynecologic malignancy from May 2012 to January 2013. Patients were categorized into one of three groups: 1) patient controlled analgesia (PCA); 2) PCA+transversus abdominis plane block (TAP); and 3) patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Mean narcotic use and patient reported pain scores were compared. RESULTS: The analysis includes 112 women (44 PCA, 30 TAP, 38 PCEA). Intraoperative factors were not different between groups with the exception of a significant difference in the rate of intra-operative complications (p=0.020), with lower rates in the PCEA group. The groups differed in intravenous narcotic use in each of the first three postoperative days (day 0: p=0.014; day 1: p<0.0001; day 2: p=0.048), with patients in the TAP group using the least on day 0 and those in the PCEA group using less on postoperative days 1 and 2. In addition, the PCEA group reported lower pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2 (day 1: p=0.046; day 2: p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The use of patient controlled epidural anesthesia after laparotomy for gynecologic malignancy is associated with decreased IV and PO narcotic use and improved pain control without increasing complications or length of hospital stay. Further investigation with prospective randomized trials is warranted to elucidate the optimal post-operative pain management technique.
OBJECTIVE: To determine how anesthesia choice in women undergoing laparotomy for gynecologic malignancy affects pain control and narcotic use. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of women who underwent laparotomy for suspected gynecologic malignancy from May 2012 to January 2013. Patients were categorized into one of three groups: 1) patient controlled analgesia (PCA); 2) PCA+transversus abdominis plane block (TAP); and 3) patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Mean narcotic use and patient reported pain scores were compared. RESULTS: The analysis includes 112 women (44 PCA, 30 TAP, 38 PCEA). Intraoperative factors were not different between groups with the exception of a significant difference in the rate of intra-operative complications (p=0.020), with lower rates in the PCEA group. The groups differed in intravenous narcotic use in each of the first three postoperative days (day 0: p=0.014; day 1: p<0.0001; day 2: p=0.048), with patients in the TAP group using the least on day 0 and those in the PCEA group using less on postoperative days 1 and 2. In addition, the PCEA group reported lower pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2 (day 1: p=0.046; day 2: p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The use of patient controlled epidural anesthesia after laparotomy for gynecologic malignancy is associated with decreased IV and PO narcotic use and improved pain control without increasing complications or length of hospital stay. Further investigation with prospective randomized trials is warranted to elucidate the optimal post-operative pain management technique.
Authors: James D Griffiths; Justine V Middle; Fiona A Barron; Sarah J Grant; Phillip A Popham; Colin F Royse Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Christopher L Wu; Seth R Cohen; Jeffrey M Richman; Andrew J Rowlingson; Genevieve E Courpas; Kristin Cheung; Elaina E Lin; Spencer S Liu Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: David M Kushner; Regina LaGalbo; Joseph P Connor; Rick Chappell; Sarah L Stewart; Ellen M Hartenbach Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Lee-May Chen; Vivian K Weinberg; Christine Chen; C Bethan Powell; Lee-Lynn Chen; John K Chan; Daniel H Burkhardt Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sarah E Ferguson; Tim Malhotra; Venkatraman E Seshan; Douglas A Levine; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: G Nelson; A D Altman; A Nick; L A Meyer; P T Ramirez; C Achtari; J Antrobus; J Huang; M Scott; L Wijk; N Acheson; O Ljungqvist; S C Dowdy Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-01-03 Impact factor: 5.482