Limitations of Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia Following Abdominoplasty.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Annals of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004020
Peter Paul Pfeiler, Paulina Rieder, Michael Kimelman, Philipp Moog, Ulf Dornseifer
{"title":"Limitations of Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia Following Abdominoplasty.","authors":"Peter Paul Pfeiler, Paulina Rieder, Michael Kimelman, Philipp Moog, Ulf Dornseifer","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective postoperative pain management is essential for patient satisfaction and an uneventful postoperative course, particularly in body contouring procedures. Systemic analgesic regimens can be supported by regional procedures, such as the transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block, but these have a limited duration of action. In contrast, thoracic epidural analgesia offers the possibility of a longer-lasting, individualized regional anesthesia administered by a patient-controlled analgesia pump.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a patient-controlled epidural analgesia to better classify the clinical value of this procedure in abdominoplasties.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This work reviewed the digital medical charts of patients who underwent selective abdominoplasty without combined surgical procedures between September 2018 and August 2022. Evaluated data comprise the postoperative analgesia regimen, including on-demand medication, mobilization time, inpatient length of stay, and clinical outcome. The patients were grouped by the presence of a thoracic epidural catheter. This catheter was placed before anesthetic induction and a saturation dose was preoperatively applied. Postoperative PCEA patients received a basal rate and could independently administer boluses. Basal rate was individually adjusted during daily additional pain visits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study cohort included 112 patients. Significant differences in the demand for supportive nonepidural opiate medication were shown between the patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) group (n = 57) and the non-PCEA group (n = 55), depending on the time after surgery. PCEA patients demanded less medication during the early postoperative days (POD 0: PCEA 0.13 (±0.99) mg vs non-PCEA 2.59 (±4.55) mg, P = 0.001; POD 1: PCEA 0.79 mg (±3.06) vs non-PCEA 2.73 (±3.98) mg, P = 0.005), but they required more during the later postoperative phase (POD 3: PCEA 2.76 (±5.60) mg vs non-PCEA 0.61 (±2.01) mg, P = 0.008; POD 4: PCEA 1.64 (±3.82) mg vs non-PCEA 0.07 (±2.01) mg, P = 0.003). In addition, PCEA patients achieved full mobilization later (PCEA 2.67 (±0.82) days vs non-PCEA 1.78 (±1.09) days, P = 0.001) and were discharged later (PCEA 4.84 (±1.23) days vs non-PCEA 4.31 (±1.37) days, P = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Because the postoperative benefits of PCEA are limited to potent analgesia immediately after abdominoplasty, less cumbersome, time-limited regional anesthesia procedures (such as TAP block) appear not only adequate but also more effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effective postoperative pain management is essential for patient satisfaction and an uneventful postoperative course, particularly in body contouring procedures. Systemic analgesic regimens can be supported by regional procedures, such as the transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block, but these have a limited duration of action. In contrast, thoracic epidural analgesia offers the possibility of a longer-lasting, individualized regional anesthesia administered by a patient-controlled analgesia pump.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a patient-controlled epidural analgesia to better classify the clinical value of this procedure in abdominoplasties.

Materials and methods: This work reviewed the digital medical charts of patients who underwent selective abdominoplasty without combined surgical procedures between September 2018 and August 2022. Evaluated data comprise the postoperative analgesia regimen, including on-demand medication, mobilization time, inpatient length of stay, and clinical outcome. The patients were grouped by the presence of a thoracic epidural catheter. This catheter was placed before anesthetic induction and a saturation dose was preoperatively applied. Postoperative PCEA patients received a basal rate and could independently administer boluses. Basal rate was individually adjusted during daily additional pain visits.

Results: The study cohort included 112 patients. Significant differences in the demand for supportive nonepidural opiate medication were shown between the patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) group (n = 57) and the non-PCEA group (n = 55), depending on the time after surgery. PCEA patients demanded less medication during the early postoperative days (POD 0: PCEA 0.13 (±0.99) mg vs non-PCEA 2.59 (±4.55) mg, P = 0.001; POD 1: PCEA 0.79 mg (±3.06) vs non-PCEA 2.73 (±3.98) mg, P = 0.005), but they required more during the later postoperative phase (POD 3: PCEA 2.76 (±5.60) mg vs non-PCEA 0.61 (±2.01) mg, P = 0.008; POD 4: PCEA 1.64 (±3.82) mg vs non-PCEA 0.07 (±2.01) mg, P = 0.003). In addition, PCEA patients achieved full mobilization later (PCEA 2.67 (±0.82) days vs non-PCEA 1.78 (±1.09) days, P = 0.001) and were discharged later (PCEA 4.84 (±1.23) days vs non-PCEA 4.31 (±1.37) days, P = 0.005).

Conclusion: Because the postoperative benefits of PCEA are limited to potent analgesia immediately after abdominoplasty, less cumbersome, time-limited regional anesthesia procedures (such as TAP block) appear not only adequate but also more effective.

腹部整形术后患者自控硬膜外镇痛的局限性。
背景:有效的术后疼痛管理对患者满意度和术后顺利进行至关重要,尤其是在身体塑形手术中。腹横肌平面(TAP)阻滞等区域性程序可支持全身镇痛方案,但这些程序的作用时间有限。相比之下,胸硬膜外镇痛可通过患者自控镇痛泵提供更持久、个性化的区域麻醉:本研究的目的是调查患者自控硬膜外镇痛的效果,以便更好地评估这种方法在腹部整形手术中的临床价值:这项工作回顾了2018年9月至2022年8月期间接受选择性腹壁整形术而未进行联合手术的患者的数字病历。评估数据包括术后镇痛方案,包括按需用药、活动时间、住院时间和临床结果。根据是否使用胸腔硬膜外导管对患者进行分组。该导管在麻醉诱导前置入,术前使用饱和剂量。术后 PCEA 患者接受基础率,并可独立给药。在每日额外的疼痛访视中对基础率进行单独调整:研究对象包括 112 名患者。患者自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)组(57 人)和非 PCEA 组(55 人)对非硬膜外阿片类药物的支持性需求存在显著差异,具体取决于术后时间。PCEA 患者在术后早期的药物需求较少(POD 0:PCEA 0.13 (±0.99) mg vs nonPCEA 2.59 (±4.55) mg,P = 0.001;POD 1:PCEA 0.79 mg (±0.99) mg vs nonPCEA 2.59 (±4.55) mg,P = 0.001):PCEA 0.79 毫克(±3.06)毫克 vs 非 PCEA 2.73(±3.98)毫克,P = 0.005),但他们在术后后期需要更多的药物(POD 3:PCEA 2.76(±5.60)毫克 vs 非 PCEA 0.61(±2.01)毫克,P = 0.008;POD 4:PCEA 1.64(±3.82)毫克 vs 非 PCEA 0.07(±2.01)毫克,P = 0.003)。此外,PCEA 患者实现完全活动的时间更晚(PCEA 2.67 (±0.82) 天 vs 非 PCEA 1.78 (±1.09) 天,P = 0.001),出院时间更晚(PCEA 4.84 (±1.23) 天 vs 非 PCEA 4.31 (±1.37) 天,P = 0.005):结论:由于 PCEA 的术后益处仅限于在腹部整形术后立即进行强效镇痛,因此不那么繁琐、有时间限制的区域麻醉程序(如 TAP 阻滞)似乎不仅足够,而且更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信