Young Yeon Choi1, Jun Seok Park1, Soo Yeun Park1, Hye Jin Kim1, Jinseok Yeo2, Jong-Chan Kim2, Sungsik Park2, Gyu-Seog Choi1. 1. Colorectal Cancer Center, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 2. Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) is a popular method of postoperative analgesia, but many patients suffer from PCA-related complications. We hypothesized that PCA was not essential in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery by minimal invasive approach. METHODS: Between February 2013 and August 2013, 297 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were included in this retrospective comparative study. The PCA group received conventional opioid-based PCA postoperatively, and the non-PCA group received intravenous anti-inflammatory drugs (Tramadol) as necessary. Patients reported their postoperative pain using a subjective visual analogue scale (VAS). The PCA-related adverse effects and frequency of rescue analgesia were evaluated, and the recovery rates were measured. RESULTS: Patients in the PCA group experienced less postoperative pain on days 4 and 5 after surgery than those in the non-PCA group (mean [SD] VAS: day 4, 6.2 [0.3] vs. 7.0 [0.3], P = 0.010; and day 5, 5.1 [0.2] vs. 5.5 [0.2], P = 0.030, respectively). Fewer patients in the non-PCA group required additional parenteral analgesia (41 of 93 patients vs. 53 of 75 patients, respectively), and none in the non-PCA group required rescue PCA postoperatively. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the non-PCA group than in the PCA group (P < 0.001). The mean (range) length of hospital stay was shorter in the non-PCA group (7.9 [6-10] days vs. 8.7 [7-16] days, respectively, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our Results suggest that IV-PCA may not be necessary in selected patients those who underwent minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.
PURPOSE: Opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) is a popular method of postoperative analgesia, but many patients suffer from PCA-related complications. We hypothesized that PCA was not essential in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery by minimal invasive approach. METHODS: Between February 2013 and August 2013, 297 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were included in this retrospective comparative study. The PCA group received conventional opioid-based PCA postoperatively, and the non-PCA group received intravenous anti-inflammatory drugs (Tramadol) as necessary. Patients reported their postoperative pain using a subjective visual analogue scale (VAS). The PCA-related adverse effects and frequency of rescue analgesia were evaluated, and the recovery rates were measured. RESULTS:Patients in the PCA group experienced less postoperative pain on days 4 and 5 after surgery than those in the non-PCA group (mean [SD] VAS: day 4, 6.2 [0.3] vs. 7.0 [0.3], P = 0.010; and day 5, 5.1 [0.2] vs. 5.5 [0.2], P = 0.030, respectively). Fewer patients in the non-PCA group required additional parenteral analgesia (41 of 93 patients vs. 53 of 75 patients, respectively), and none in the non-PCA group required rescue PCA postoperatively. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the non-PCA group than in the PCA group (P < 0.001). The mean (range) length of hospital stay was shorter in the non-PCA group (7.9 [6-10] days vs. 8.7 [7-16] days, respectively, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our Results suggest that IV-PCA may not be necessary in selected patients those who underwent minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.
Authors: Woo Ram Kim; Se Jin Baek; Chang Woo Kim; Hyun A Jang; Min Soo Cho; Sung Uk Bae; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Seung Hyuk Baik; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim; Seung Kuk Sohn Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 1.859
Authors: P Tilleul; M Aissou; F Bocquet; N Thiriat; O le Grelle; M J Burke; J Hutton; M Beaussier Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Catrina C Crisp; Sindura Bandi; Steven D Kleeman; Susan H Oakley; Christine M Vaccaro; Maria V Estanol; Angela N Fellner; Rachel N Pauls Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Wiremu S MacFater; Weisi Xia; Ahmed Barazanchi; Bruce Su'a; Darren Svirskis; Andrew G Hill Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jinseok Yeo; Jun Seok Park; Gyu-Seog Choi; Hye Jin Kim; Jay Kyoung Kim; Jinyoung Oh; Soo Yeun Park Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-05-08 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Sara J Hyland; Kara K Brockhaus; William R Vincent; Nicole Z Spence; Michelle M Lucki; Michael J Howkins; Robert K Cleary Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-03-16
Authors: L Brown; M Gray; B Griffiths; M Jones; A Madhavan; K Naru; F Shaban; S Somnath; D Harji Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Michael J Scott; Matthew D McEvoy; Debra B Gordon; Stuart A Grant; Julie K M Thacker; Christopher L Wu; Tong J Gan; Monty G Mythen; Andrew D Shaw; Timothy E Miller Journal: Perioper Med (Lond) Date: 2017-04-13
Authors: Matthew D McEvoy; Michael J Scott; Debra B Gordon; Stuart A Grant; Julie K M Thacker; Christopher L Wu; Tong J Gan; Monty G Mythen; Andrew D Shaw; Timothy E Miller Journal: Perioper Med (Lond) Date: 2017-04-13