Mark R Jones1, Ethan Y Brovman1, Amy E Wagenaar1, Samuel P Ang1, Edward E Whang1, Alan D Kaye1, Richard D Urman1. 1. Jones, MD, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Brovman, MD, Wagenaar, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Whang, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York. Ang, MD, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. Kaye, MD, PhD, Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Neurosciences, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA. Urman, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, Center for Perioperative Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
Background: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a common procedure associated with significant postoperative morbidity and prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS). The use of epidural analgesia in VHR has not been widely evaluated. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of general anesthesia plus epidural analgesia (GA + EA) versus general anesthesia alone (GA) in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify elective cases of VHR. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes in GA vs GA + EA groups. Cases receiving transverse abdominus plane blocks were excluded. Results: A total of 9697 VHR cases were identified, resulting in two matched cohorts of 521 cases each. LOS was significantly longer in the GA + EA group (5.58 days) vs the GA group (5.20 days, p = 0.008). No other statistically significant differences in 30-day outcomes were observed between the matched cohorts. Conclusion: Epidural analgesia in VHR is associated with statistically significant, but not clinically significant increase in LOS and may not yield any additional benefit in cases of isolated, elective VHR. Epidural analgesia may not be beneficial in this surgical population. Future studies should focus on alternative modes of analgesia to optimize pain control and outcomes for this procedure.
Background: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a common procedure associated with significant postoperative morbidity and prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS). The use of epidural analgesia in VHR has not been widely evaluated. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of general anesthesia plus epidural analgesia (GA + EA) versus general anesthesia alone (GA) in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify elective cases of VHR. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes in GA vs GA + EA groups. Cases receiving transverse abdominus plane blocks were excluded. Results: A total of 9697 VHR cases were identified, resulting in two matched cohorts of 521 cases each. LOS was significantly longer in the GA + EA group (5.58 days) vs the GA group (5.20 days, p = 0.008). No other statistically significant differences in 30-day outcomes were observed between the matched cohorts. Conclusion: Epidural analgesia in VHR is associated with statistically significant, but not clinically significant increase in LOS and may not yield any additional benefit in cases of isolated, elective VHR. Epidural analgesia may not be beneficial in this surgical population. Future studies should focus on alternative modes of analgesia to optimize pain control and outcomes for this procedure.
Authors: John R A Rigg; Konrad Jamrozik; Paul S Myles; Brendan S Silbert; Phillip J Peyton; Richard W Parsons; Karen S Collins Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-04-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Massarat Zutshi; Conor P Delaney; Anthony J Senagore; Nagy Mekhail; Brenda Lewis; Jason T Connor; Victor W Fazio Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ajita S Prabhu; David M Krpata; Arielle Perez; Sharon Phillips; Li-Ching Huang; Ivy N Haskins; Steven Rosenblatt; Benjamin K Poulose; Michael J Rosen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: T Bisgaard; H Kehlet; M B Bay-Nielsen; M G Iversen; P Wara; J Rosenberg; H F Friis-Andersen; L N Jorgensen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Wande B Pratt; Richard A Steinbrook; Shishir K Maithel; Tsafrir Vanounou; Mark P Callery; Charles M Vollmer Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-02-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ralph Lattermann; Linda Wykes; Leopold Eberhart; Franco Carli; Sarkis Meterissian; Thomas Schricker Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.288