PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) versus conventional opioid intravenous (IV) infusion after gastrointestinal cancer surgery regarding several post-surgery parameters of recovery. METHODS:One hundred and one patients were prospectively randomized to receive either thoracic/lumbar PCEA (PCEA group) or the standard analgesia technique used in our hospital, conventional IV infusion of morphine (IVMO group) after gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Pain intensity, time of mobilization and bowel function recovery were analyzed post-surgery. We also evaluated postoperative complications and length of Postoperative-Intermediate Intensive Care Unit (PI-ICU) stay and hospital stay. RESULTS:Pain intensity was significantly less in the PCEA group in comparison with the IVMO Group at awakening 2, 8, 24, 30 and 48 hours after surgery (p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001, p = 0.043, p = 0.036, and p = 0.029, respectively). The latency to bedside mobilization, walking, first postoperative flatus and apparition of first stool were significantly faster (1.74 versus 2.26 days, 3.06 versus 3.78 days, 2.1 versus 3.14 days and 3.73 versus 5.28 days, respectively) in the PCEA group than in the IVMO group (p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001, and p <0.001, respectively). The incidence of nausea/vomiting was significantly lower in the PCEA group in comparison with the IVMO group (p = 0.001). Surgical-associated complications were significantly lower in the IVMO Group than in the PCEA group (p = 0.023). Length of PI-ICU stay was similar in the two groups but length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in PCEA group (4 versus 5 days p = 0.2849, 9 versus 12 days; p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:PCEA provides better postoperative pain control, improves postoperative recovery after gastrointestinal cancer surgery compared with conventional intravenous morphine infusion. Therefore, it is more acceptable than conventional pain management.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) versus conventional opioid intravenous (IV) infusion after gastrointestinal cancer surgery regarding several post-surgery parameters of recovery. METHODS: One hundred and one patients were prospectively randomized to receive either thoracic/lumbar PCEA (PCEA group) or the standard analgesia technique used in our hospital, conventional IV infusion of morphine (IVMO group) after gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Pain intensity, time of mobilization and bowel function recovery were analyzed post-surgery. We also evaluated postoperative complications and length of Postoperative-Intermediate Intensive Care Unit (PI-ICU) stay and hospital stay. RESULTS:Pain intensity was significantly less in the PCEA group in comparison with the IVMO Group at awakening 2, 8, 24, 30 and 48 hours after surgery (p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001, p = 0.043, p = 0.036, and p = 0.029, respectively). The latency to bedside mobilization, walking, first postoperative flatus and apparition of first stool were significantly faster (1.74 versus 2.26 days, 3.06 versus 3.78 days, 2.1 versus 3.14 days and 3.73 versus 5.28 days, respectively) in the PCEA group than in the IVMO group (p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001, and p <0.001, respectively). The incidence of nausea/vomiting was significantly lower in the PCEA group in comparison with the IVMO group (p = 0.001). Surgical-associated complications were significantly lower in the IVMO Group than in the PCEA group (p = 0.023). Length of PI-ICU stay was similar in the two groups but length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in PCEA group (4 versus 5 days p = 0.2849, 9 versus 12 days; p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:PCEA provides better postoperative pain control, improves postoperative recovery after gastrointestinal cancer surgery compared with conventional intravenous morphine infusion. Therefore, it is more acceptable than conventional pain management.
Entities:
Keywords:
gastrointestinal cancer surgery; patient-controlled epidural analgesia; postoperative analgesia
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: S S Liu; R L Carpenter; D C Mackey; R C Thirlby; S M Rupp; T S Shine; N G Feinglass; P P Metzger; J T Fulmer; S L Smith Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: H Breivik; P C Borchgrevink; S M Allen; L A Rosseland; L Romundstad; E K Breivik Hals; G Kvarstein; A Stubhaug Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Federico Coccolini; Francesco Corradi; Massimo Sartelli; Raul Coimbra; Igor A Kryvoruchko; Ari Leppaniemi; Krstina Doklestic; Elena Bignami; Giandomenico Biancofiore; Miklosh Bala; Ceresoli Marco; Dimitris Damaskos; Walt L Biffl; Paola Fugazzola; Domenico Santonastaso; Vanni Agnoletti; Catia Sbarbaro; Mirco Nacoti; Timothy C Hardcastle; Diego Mariani; Belinda De Simone; Matti Tolonen; Chad Ball; Mauro Podda; Isidoro Di Carlo; Salomone Di Saverio; Pradeep Navsaria; Luigi Bonavina; Fikri Abu-Zidan; Kjetil Soreide; Gustavo P Fraga; Vanessa Henriques Carvalho; Sergio Faria Batista; Andreas Hecker; Alessandro Cucchetti; Giorgio Ercolani; Dario Tartaglia; Joseph M Galante; Imtiaz Wani; Hayato Kurihara; Edward Tan; Andrey Litvin; Rita Maria Melotti; Gabriele Sganga; Tamara Zoro; Alessandro Isirdi; Nicola De'Angelis; Dieter G Weber; Adrien M Hodonou; Richard tenBroek; Dario Parini; Jim Khan; Giovanni Sbrana; Carlo Coniglio; Antonino Giarratano; Angelo Gratarola; Claudia Zaghi; Oreste Romeo; Michael Kelly; Francesco Forfori; Massimo Chiarugi; Ernest E Moore; Fausto Catena; Manu L N G Malbrain Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 8.165