INTRODUCTION: Effective analgesia following open oesophagogastric (OG) resection is considered a key determinant of recovery. This review aimed to compare epidural to alternative analgesic techniques in patients undergoing major open resection for OG cancer. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized controlled trials comparing epidural with alternative analgesic methods in open OG surgery. Primary outcome was the overall post-operative morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complication rates, length of stay (LOS) and pain scores at 24 h. RESULTS: Six trials which comprised of 249 patients were identified (3 following gastrectomy and 3 following oesophagectomy). Following gastrectomy, secondary outcomes including pulmonary complications and dynamic pain scores at 24 h were improved in the epidural groups. No difference was observed in overall morbidity rates or LOS. Following oesophagectomy, overall morbidity rates were not reported at all. LOS was not shortened, and rest pain was not significantly different in the epidural group, but dynamic pain scores were reported to be improved. CONCLUSION: Few trials of analgesic regimen have been performed following open OG resection. In those trials that have been performed, epidural analgesia has not been shown to reduce overall morbidity. Epidural is associated with reduced pulmonary complications after gastrectomy, but no benefit has been shown after oesophagectomy. Whilst widespread investigation of minimally invasive OG techniques currently takes place, it is clear that the most effective patient pathway following open OG surgery, particularly oesophagectomy, is still not proven. Further trials are required.
INTRODUCTION: Effective analgesia following open oesophagogastric (OG) resection is considered a key determinant of recovery. This review aimed to compare epidural to alternative analgesic techniques in patients undergoing major open resection for OG cancer. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized controlled trials comparing epidural with alternative analgesic methods in open OG surgery. Primary outcome was the overall post-operative morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complication rates, length of stay (LOS) and pain scores at 24 h. RESULTS: Six trials which comprised of 249 patients were identified (3 following gastrectomy and 3 following oesophagectomy). Following gastrectomy, secondary outcomes including pulmonary complications and dynamic pain scores at 24 h were improved in the epidural groups. No difference was observed in overall morbidity rates or LOS. Following oesophagectomy, overall morbidity rates were not reported at all. LOS was not shortened, and rest pain was not significantly different in the epidural group, but dynamic pain scores were reported to be improved. CONCLUSION: Few trials of analgesic regimen have been performed following open OG resection. In those trials that have been performed, epidural analgesia has not been shown to reduce overall morbidity. Epidural is associated with reduced pulmonary complications after gastrectomy, but no benefit has been shown after oesophagectomy. Whilst widespread investigation of minimally invasive OG techniques currently takes place, it is clear that the most effective patient pathway following open OG surgery, particularly oesophagectomy, is still not proven. Further trials are required.
Authors: Brian M Block; Spencer S Liu; Andrew J Rowlingson; Anne R Cowan; John A Cowan; Christopher L Wu Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-11-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Amy Knott; Samir Pathak; John S McGrath; Robin Kennedy; Alan Horgan; Monty Mythen; Fiona Carter; Nader K Francis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kai B Kaufmann; Wolfgang Baar; Torben Glatz; Jens Hoeppner; Hartmut Buerkle; Ulrich Goebel; Sebastian Heinrich Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: B F Kingma; W J Eshuis; E M de Groot; M L Feenstra; J P Ruurda; S S Gisbertz; W Ten Hoope; M Marsman; J Hermanides; M W Hollmann; C J Kalkman; M D P Luyer; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; H J Scholten; M Buise; M J van Det; E A Kouwenhoven; F van der Meer; G W J Frederix; E Cheong; K Al Naimi; M I van Berge Henegouwen; R van Hillegersberg Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-02-22 Impact factor: 4.430