Postoperative pain management following minimally invasive abdominal cancer surgeries -An audit.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Indian journal of cancer Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-27 DOI:10.4103/ijc.IJC_169_21
Sumitra G Bakshi, Sheetal Gupta, P N Jain
{"title":"Postoperative pain management following minimally invasive abdominal cancer surgeries -An audit.","authors":"Sumitra G Bakshi, Sheetal Gupta, P N Jain","doi":"10.4103/ijc.IJC_169_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited data comparing pain management following various minimally invasive oncological surgeries (MIOS). This retrospective audit was planned to determine the severity of pain and to study the analgesic modalities offered to these patients. Secondary objectives included studying opioid requirements, non-opioid analgesics, their side effects, and the influence of comorbidities on the choice of pain modalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following approval and registration of trial (CTRI/2018/10/016220), data were collected retrospectively from adult patients who underwent elective MIOS for abdominal tumors from August 2017 to July 2018. Pain scores (PS) on the day of surgery, and the average, worst PS, and the morphine equivalent (ME) dose in the perioperative period was recorded. Emergency surgeries and thoracic-abdominal MIOS were excluded. The association between the type of surgery, pain modalities, and PS were compared using Chi-square test. ME dose consumption of patients and type of surgery were compared using ANOVA with Bonferroni's correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 349 patients' data that were analyzed, 76% had mild, 22% had moderate, and 2% had severe pain after surgery. Port site infiltration was done in 27% of cases and epidural analgesia in 46 patients (13%). PS and opioid consumption (ME = 5.7 ± 5.2 mg) was significantly higher following pelvic surgeries when compared to other urological and diagnostic MIOS. American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status did not affect PS or choice of pain management technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most of the patients experience mild pain at movement in the immediate postoperative period, pelvic MIOS (abdominoperineal resection/exenteration surgeries) have higher PS and opioid consumption than other MIOS.</p>","PeriodicalId":13505,"journal":{"name":"Indian journal of cancer","volume":" ","pages":"368-374"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian journal of cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijc.IJC_169_21","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is limited data comparing pain management following various minimally invasive oncological surgeries (MIOS). This retrospective audit was planned to determine the severity of pain and to study the analgesic modalities offered to these patients. Secondary objectives included studying opioid requirements, non-opioid analgesics, their side effects, and the influence of comorbidities on the choice of pain modalities.

Methods: Following approval and registration of trial (CTRI/2018/10/016220), data were collected retrospectively from adult patients who underwent elective MIOS for abdominal tumors from August 2017 to July 2018. Pain scores (PS) on the day of surgery, and the average, worst PS, and the morphine equivalent (ME) dose in the perioperative period was recorded. Emergency surgeries and thoracic-abdominal MIOS were excluded. The association between the type of surgery, pain modalities, and PS were compared using Chi-square test. ME dose consumption of patients and type of surgery were compared using ANOVA with Bonferroni's correction.

Results: Out of the 349 patients' data that were analyzed, 76% had mild, 22% had moderate, and 2% had severe pain after surgery. Port site infiltration was done in 27% of cases and epidural analgesia in 46 patients (13%). PS and opioid consumption (ME = 5.7 ± 5.2 mg) was significantly higher following pelvic surgeries when compared to other urological and diagnostic MIOS. American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status did not affect PS or choice of pain management technique.

Conclusion: Most of the patients experience mild pain at movement in the immediate postoperative period, pelvic MIOS (abdominoperineal resection/exenteration surgeries) have higher PS and opioid consumption than other MIOS.

腹部癌症微创手术后的术后疼痛管理 - 审计。
背景:比较各种微创肿瘤手术(MIOS)后疼痛治疗的数据非常有限。这项回顾性审计计划旨在确定疼痛的严重程度,并研究为这些患者提供的镇痛方式。次要目标包括研究阿片类药物需求、非阿片类镇痛药、其副作用以及合并症对疼痛方式选择的影响:在批准和注册试验(CTRI/2018/10/016220)后,对2017年8月至2018年7月期间因腹部肿瘤接受择期MIOS的成年患者进行了数据回顾性收集。记录了手术当天的疼痛评分(PS)、平均、最差PS以及围手术期的吗啡当量(ME)剂量。不包括急诊手术和胸腹MIOS。采用Chi-square检验比较了手术类型、疼痛方式和PS之间的关联。使用方差分析比较患者的 ME 用药量和手术类型,并进行 Bonferroni 校正:在分析的 349 例患者数据中,76% 的患者术后有轻度疼痛,22% 有中度疼痛,2% 有重度疼痛。27%的病例进行了手术孔部位浸润,46 名患者(13%)进行了硬膜外镇痛。与其他泌尿科和诊断性 MIOS 相比,盆腔手术后的 PS 和阿片类药物消耗量(ME = 5.7 ± 5.2 毫克)明显更高。美国麻醉医师协会身体状况并不影响PS或疼痛治疗技术的选择:大多数患者在术后初期活动时会感到轻微疼痛,盆腔 MIOS(腹会阴切除/开腹手术)的 PS 和阿片类药物用量高于其他 MIOS。
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
Indian journal of cancer
Indian journal of cancer Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Cancer (ISSN 0019-509X), the show window of the progress of ontological sciences in India, was established in 1963. Indian Journal of Cancer is the first and only periodical serving the needs of all the specialties of oncology in India.
×
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