OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this randomized trial was to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) for pain control over the first 48 hours after hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported outcomes, total narcotic utilization, and complications. BACKGROUND: Although adequate postoperative pain control is critical to patient and surgeon success, the optimal analgesia regimen in HPB surgery remains controversial. METHODS: Using a 2.5:1 randomization strategy, 140 patients were randomized toTEA (N = 106) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (N = 34). Patient-reported pain was measured on a Likert scale (0-10) at standard time intervals. Cumulative pain area under the curve was determined using the trapezoidal method. RESULTS: Between the study groups key demographic, comorbidity, clinical, and operative variables were equivalently distributed. The median area under the curve of the postoperative time 0- to 48-hour pain scores was lower in the TEA group (78.6 vs 105.2 pain-hours, P = 0.032) with a 35% reduction in patients experiencing ≥7/10 pain (43% vs 62%, P = 0.07). Patient-reported outcomes and total opiate use further supported the benefit of TEA on patient experience. Anesthesia-related events requiring change in analgesic therapy were comparable (12.2% vs 2.9%, respectively, P = 0.187). Grade 3 or higher surgical complications (6.6% vs 9.4%), median length of stay (6 days vs 6 days), readmission (1.9% vs 3.1%), and return to the operating room (0.9% vs 3.1%) were similar (all P > 0.05). There were no mortalities in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In major HPB surgery, TEA provides a superior patient experience through improved pain control and less narcotic use, without increased length of stay or complications.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this randomized trial was to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) for pain control over the first 48 hours after hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported outcomes, total narcotic utilization, and complications. BACKGROUND: Although adequate postoperative pain control is critical to patient and surgeon success, the optimal analgesia regimen in HPB surgery remains controversial. METHODS: Using a 2.5:1 randomization strategy, 140 patients were randomized to TEA (N = 106) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (N = 34). Patient-reported pain was measured on a Likert scale (0-10) at standard time intervals. Cumulative pain area under the curve was determined using the trapezoidal method. RESULTS: Between the study groups key demographic, comorbidity, clinical, and operative variables were equivalently distributed. The median area under the curve of the postoperative time 0- to 48-hour pain scores was lower in the TEA group (78.6 vs 105.2 pain-hours, P = 0.032) with a 35% reduction in patients experiencing ≥7/10 pain (43% vs 62%, P = 0.07). Patient-reported outcomes and total opiate use further supported the benefit of TEA on patient experience. Anesthesia-related events requiring change in analgesic therapy were comparable (12.2% vs 2.9%, respectively, P = 0.187). Grade 3 or higher surgical complications (6.6% vs 9.4%), median length of stay (6 days vs 6 days), readmission (1.9% vs 3.1%), and return to the operating room (0.9% vs 3.1%) were similar (all P > 0.05). There were no mortalities in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In major HPB surgery, TEA provides a superior patient experience through improved pain control and less narcotic use, without increased length of stay or complications.
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Mark Brooke-Smith; Michael Crawford; Rene Adam; Moritz Koch; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Ronald P Dematteo; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Sheung Tat Fan; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Lorenzo Capussotti; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Thomas A Aloia; Bridget N Fahy; Craig P Fischer; Stephen L Jones; Andrea Duchini; Joseph Galati; A Osama Gaber; R Mark Ghobrial; Barbara L Bass Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Umut Sarpel; Anthony S Bonavia; Alexis Grucela; Sasan Roayaie; Myron E Schwartz; Daniel M Labow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Rebecca K Marcus; Heather A Lillemoe; David C Rice; Gabriel Mena; Brian K Bednarski; Barbra B Speer; Pedro T Ramirez; Javier D Lasala; Neema Navai; Wendell H Williams; Bradford J Kim; Rachel K Voss; Vijaya N Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Stephanie S Kim; Xiaojuan Niu; Irmina A Elliott; Jerry P Jiang; Amanda M Dann; Lauren M Damato; Hallie Chung; Mark D Girgis; Jonathan C King; O Joe Hines; Siamak Rahman; Timothy R Donahue Journal: Pancreas Date: 2019 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Raja R Narayan; Jashodeep Datta; Debra A Goldman; Victoria G Aveson; Henry S Walch; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Mithat Gönen; Vinod P Balachandran; Jeffrey A Drebin; William R Jarnagin; T Peter Kingham; Alice C Wei; Nikolaus Schultz; Nancy E Kemeny; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Diego Vicente; Miguel Patino; Rebecca Marcus; Heather Lillmoe; Preparim Limani; Timothy Newhook; Andy Lee; Ching-Wei Tzeng; Yun Segraves-Chun; David Tweardy; Vijaya Gottumukkala; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Thomas Aloia; Juan P Cata Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2019-01-15
Authors: Grzegorz Niewiński; Wojciech Figiel; Michał Grąt; Marta Dec; Marcin Morawski; Waldemar Patkowski; Krzysztof Zieniewicz Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.352