| Literature DB >> 30439866 |
Yufeng Liu1, Xuan Song1, Dan Sun1, Jiabei Wang1, Yaliang Lan1, Guangchao Yang1, Fanzheng Meng1, Yan Wang1, Yifeng Cui1, Bo Zhang1, Xianying Li1, Lianxin Liu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND As laparoscopic liver resection is becoming a commonly used method for hepatic surgery, postoperative pain management is emerging as one of the trickiest problems after surgery. The ideal method of pain management is controversial and the optimal strategy for postoperative pain management after surgery remains unclear. The present study evaluated the postoperative analgesic efficacy of parecoxib and fentanyl, and the benefit of a new intravenous parecoxib infusion pump with patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic liver resection. MATERIAL AND METHODS This controlled, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial compared VAS scores among 3 groups of patients: a fentanyl group (FEN group) using a fentanyl citrate pump, an intravenous parecoxib group (IVPA group) receiving intravenous parecoxib, and a parecoxib pump group (PUPA group) receiving parecoxib sodium by analgesia pump. We enrolled 124 patients planned for laparoscopic liver resection. The primary outcome was VAS score at rest and with movement. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects (including nausea), sedation, pruritus, and quality of life. RESULTS For all time intervals, the VAS scores were significantly lower in the PUPA group. VAS scores at rest and with movement in the PUPA group were the lowest among the 3 groups, while the scores in the FEN group were the highest. More adverse effects were detected in the FEN group, and no significant differences in adverse effects were found between the intravenous group and the parecoxib pump group. CONCLUSIONS Use of the intravenous infusion parecoxib pump for patient-controlled analgesia provides superior analgesic efficacy and fewer adverse effects for patients after laparoscopic liver resection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30439866 PMCID: PMC6249984 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.913182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Patient characteristics for each group.
| Variables | Fentanyl | IVPA | PUPA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 50 (15) | 52 (11) | 51 (13) |
| Sex (% male) | 47.5 | 47.6 | 52.4 |
| Weight (kg) | 71 (14) | 76 (15) | 73 (16) |
| Height (cm) | 165 (7) | 167 (9) | 168 (7) |
| ASA (II/III/IV) | 14/20/6 | 12/21/9 | 14/22/6 |
| Starting Hb value (g/L) | 136 (11) | 133 (12) | 130 (10) |
| Starting platelet count, 109 pl/L | 245 (44) | 254 (47) | 251 (46) |
Values are mean (SD), otherwise absolute number. All the P values of the statistical are nonsignificant. All the varieties except ASA level follow the normal distribution. w <0.919
Figure 1VAS score at rest for each time interval. * Difference is significant. The VAS score of patients in the IVPA and PUPA groups was significantly lower than that in the FEN group (P<0.001) at all time intervals (P<0.001). There is no difference in VAS scores between the IVPA and PUPA groups. The P values are 0.508 at 2 h, 0.698 at 4 h, 0.998 at 8 h, 0.527 at 16 h, 0.638 at 24 h, 0.785 at 48 h, and 0.769 at 72 h.
Figure 2VAS score with movement for each time interval. * Difference is significant. The VAS score of patients in the IVPA and PUPA groups was significantly lower than that in the FEN group (P<0.001) at all time intervals (P<0.001). There is no VAS score difference in the IVPA and PUPA groups. The P values are 0.899 at 2 h, 0.376 at 4 h, 0.462 at 8 h, 0.541 at 16 h, 0.884 at 24 h, 0.577 at 48 h, and 0.798 at 72 h.
VAS scores after surgery during 72 h.
| Variables | Time points | Group FEN | Group IVPA | Group PUPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rest VAS | 2 h | 3.600±1.392 | 2.690±0.890 | 2.310±0.749 |
| 4 h | 4.000±1.414 | 2.548±0.539 | 2.000±0.584 | |
| 8 h | 3.625±1.580 | 2.381±0.803 | 1.881±0.670 | |
| 16 h | 3.200±1.091 | 2.048±0.739 | 1.452±0.663 | |
| 24 h | 3.050±1.449 | 1.762±0.701 | 1.333±0.687 | |
| 48 h | 2.350±1.189 | 1.667±0.853 | 1.119±0.739 | |
| 72 h | 2.500±1.359 | 1.381±0.670 | 0.929±0.808 | |
| Movement VAS | 2 h | 4.175±1.500 | 3.214±0.891 | 2.738±0.828 |
| 4 h | 4.200±1.436 | 2.952±0.705 | 2.595±0.767 | |
| 8 h | 3.825±1.615 | 2.786±0.708 | 2.405±0.767 | |
| 16 h | 3.300±1.159 | 2.500±0.796 | 1.905±0.617 | |
| 24 h | 3.450±1.431 | 2.262±0.656 | 1.738±0.828 | |
| 48 h | 2.875±1.418 | 2.238±1.037 | 1.619±0.909 | |
| 72 h | 2.550±1.260 | 1.833±0.928 | 1.381±0.764 |
Data are expressed as mean ±SD. All the P value of group FEN and group IVPA are <0.001. All the P value of group FEN and group PUPA are <0.001. All the P value of group PUPA and group IVPA are <0.001. The statistics were analyzed by t test and one-way ANOVA test.
Median evaluation of adverse effects for each group.
| Hours | Sedation (1–5) | Nausea (0–5) | Pruritus (0–2) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEN | IVPA | PUPA | FEN | IVPA | PUPA | FEN | IVPA | PUPA | |
| 2 | 3 (2) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 4 | 2 (2) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 8 | 3 (2) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 16 | 2 (2) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 24 | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 48 | 1 (0) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 72 | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Data are expressed as median (interquartile range). Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze data. Scoring is according to the Sedation Score (Ramsey).
Number of times dolantin was used.
| Groups | Times dolantin used |
|---|---|
| Group FEN | 8 |
| Group IVPA | 2 |
| Group PUPA | 1 |
Values are absolute numbers.
Patients’ movement situation affected by the pain.
| Group | No effect | Affecting sleep | Unable to sleep | Unable to eat | Limited self-care ability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group FEN | 5 | 20 | 10 | 3 | 2 |
| Group IVPA | 21 | 13 | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| Group PUPA | 18 | 15 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
Values are absolute numbers.
Figure 3The remaining 124 patients were included in randomization and data analysis.