Boris Hager1, Sereina A Herzog2, Barbara Hager3, Andreas Sandner-Kiesling3, Richard Zigeuner1, Karl Pummer1. 1. Department of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 2. Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
AIM: To explore whether the total pain experience differs after (partial) kidney tumour nephrectomies via flank, transabdominal or laparoscopic access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 107 patients with flank, 12 with transabdominal and 21 with laparoscopic interventions. For pain treatment, conventional analgesics (A) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) or thoracic peridural analgesia (tPDA) were used. Self-reported pain was measured with a Visual Analogue Scale three times daily. The area under the curve (AUC) at rest (R) and during a standardized body movement (M) were calculated from the intervention till the end of the second T(0-2) and seventh postoperative day T(0-7), respectively. RESULTS: The median AUC for T(0-2) at R was more intense for laparoscopy (13) than for flank incision (A, 9) and approximately the same during M. For flank incisions (A), the median AUC at R rises from 9 for T(0-2) to 22 for T(0-7) and at M the median AUC increases from 18 to 37. In contrast, laparoscopy did not cause further pain after the second postoperative day. Furthermore, with flank incision for T(0-2), at R, tPDA was superior to A (median AUC: 5 versus 9, p = 0.02) and at M again tPDA (median AUC: 12) had a better pain-control as A (18) or even as PCIA (19, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic nephrectomies cause a relatively intense mean cumulative pain for T(0-2) and a subsequent absence of pain. However, flank incisions went on to increased pain levels until the seventh postoperative day with tPDA as most effective therapy.
AIM: To explore whether the total pain experience differs after (partial) kidney tumour nephrectomies via flank, transabdominal or laparoscopic access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 107 patients with flank, 12 with transabdominal and 21 with laparoscopic interventions. For pain treatment, conventional analgesics (A) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) or thoracic peridural analgesia (tPDA) were used. Self-reported pain was measured with a Visual Analogue Scale three times daily. The area under the curve (AUC) at rest (R) and during a standardized body movement (M) were calculated from the intervention till the end of the second T(0-2) and seventh postoperative day T(0-7), respectively. RESULTS: The median AUC for T(0-2) at R was more intense for laparoscopy (13) than for flank incision (A, 9) and approximately the same during M. For flank incisions (A), the median AUC at R rises from 9 for T(0-2) to 22 for T(0-7) and at M the median AUC increases from 18 to 37. In contrast, laparoscopy did not cause further pain after the second postoperative day. Furthermore, with flank incision for T(0-2), at R, tPDA was superior to A (median AUC: 5 versus 9, p = 0.02) and at M again tPDA (median AUC: 12) had a better pain-control as A (18) or even as PCIA (19, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic nephrectomies cause a relatively intense mean cumulative pain for T(0-2) and a subsequent absence of pain. However, flank incisions went on to increased pain levels until the seventh postoperative day with tPDA as most effective therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Area under the curve; flank incision; laparoscopic nephrectomy; partial tumour nephrectomy; postoperative pain
Authors: Francesco Greco; M Raschid Hoda; Antonio Alcaraz; Alexander Bachmann; Oliver W Hakenberg; Paolo Fornara Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Thomas Wolff; Olivier Giannini; Michael Dickenman; Robin Ruszat; Lorenz Gürke; Mark Kaufmann; Thomas C Gasser; Jürg Steiger; Christian G Stief; Tullio Sulser Journal: Transplantation Date: 2006-06-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: M H Andersen; L Mathisen; O Oyen; B Edwin; R Digernes; G Kvarstein; T I Tønnessen; A K Wahl; B R Hanestad; E Fosse Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M C Warlé; A W Berkers; J F Langenhuijsen; M F van der Jagt; Ph M Dooper; H J Kloke; D Pilzecker; S H Renes; K E Wever; A J Hoitsma; J A van der Vliet; F C H D'Ancona Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Michael L Nicholson; Rosemary Elwell; Monika Kaushik; Atul Bagul; Sarah A Hosgood Journal: Transplantation Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Kent T Perry; Stephen J Freedland; Jim C Hu; Michael W Phelan; Blaine Kristo; Albin H Gritsch; Jacob Rajfer; Peter G Schulam Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marit Helen Andersen; Lars Mathisen; Marijke Veenstra; Ole Oyen; Bjørn Edwin; Randi Digernes; Gunnvald Kvarstein; Tor Inge Tønnessen; Astrid Klopstad Wahl; Berit Rokne Hanestad; Erik Fosse Journal: Transplantation Date: 2007-07-15 Impact factor: 4.939