Multimodal analgesia with continuous nerve blocks versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pancreatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Yu-Lien Hsieh, Chung-Ren Lin
{"title":"Multimodal analgesia with continuous nerve blocks versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pancreatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Yu-Lien Hsieh, Chung-Ren Lin","doi":"10.1186/s13741-026-00719-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postoperative pain management after pancreatectomy is challenging due to extensive tissue trauma and visceral pain. Multimodal analgesia (MMA) with continuous peripheral nerve blocks may optimize pain control while reducing opioid consumption. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of MMA with continuous peripheral nerve blocks compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent open pancreatectomy (pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy) between March 2021 and April 2024 using either MMA with continuous peripheral nerve blocks or IV PCA. Our primary outcome was pain scores through postoperative three days. The secondary outcomes included cumulative morphine consumption, time to first mobilization, morbidity and mortality rates, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. We adjusted for confounders using univariable and multivariable regression analyses and applied generalized estimating equations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 104 patients; 42 and 62 patients in the MMA and PCA groups, respectively. Patients in the MMA group had significantly lower pain scores on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.002), lower morphine consumption within 72 hours postoperatively (P < 0.001), earlier mobilization, and fewer 14-day readmissions compared to the PCA group. No significant differences were observed in morbidity, mortality, unexpected intensive care unit admission, or length of hospital stay between the groups. Patients who received MMA experienced less nausea and vomiting than those who received PCA, and no serious adverse events occurred in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MMA with continuous peripheral nerve blocks provides effective analgesia, reduces opioid consumption, and facilitates early mobilization compared to IV PCA in pancreatectomy patients. Further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19764,"journal":{"name":"Perioperative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13647893/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perioperative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-026-00719-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Postoperative pain management after pancreatectomy is challenging due to extensive tissue trauma and visceral pain. Multimodal analgesia (MMA) with continuous peripheral nerve blocks may optimize pain control while reducing opioid consumption. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of MMA with continuous peripheral nerve blocks compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA).

Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent open pancreatectomy (pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy) between March 2021 and April 2024 using either MMA with continuous peripheral nerve blocks or IV PCA. Our primary outcome was pain scores through postoperative three days. The secondary outcomes included cumulative morphine consumption, time to first mobilization, morbidity and mortality rates, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. We adjusted for confounders using univariable and multivariable regression analyses and applied generalized estimating equations.

Results: The study included 104 patients; 42 and 62 patients in the MMA and PCA groups, respectively. Patients in the MMA group had significantly lower pain scores on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.002), lower morphine consumption within 72 hours postoperatively (P < 0.001), earlier mobilization, and fewer 14-day readmissions compared to the PCA group. No significant differences were observed in morbidity, mortality, unexpected intensive care unit admission, or length of hospital stay between the groups. Patients who received MMA experienced less nausea and vomiting than those who received PCA, and no serious adverse events occurred in either group.

Conclusions: MMA with continuous peripheral nerve blocks provides effective analgesia, reduces opioid consumption, and facilitates early mobilization compared to IV PCA in pancreatectomy patients. Further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

多模式连续神经阻滞镇痛与患者静脉自控镇痛在胰腺切除术中的比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:由于广泛的组织创伤和内脏疼痛,胰腺切除术后的疼痛管理具有挑战性。多模式镇痛(MMA)与连续周围神经阻滞可以优化疼痛控制,同时减少阿片类药物的消耗。在这项研究中,我们旨在评估MMA联合持续周围神经阻滞与静脉自控镇痛(IV PCA)的疗效。方法:这项单中心回顾性队列研究比较了2021年3月至2024年4月期间接受开放式胰腺切除术(胰十二指肠切除术或远端胰腺切除术)的患者,采用MMA联合持续周围神经阻滞或IV PCA。我们的主要结局是术后三天的疼痛评分。次要结局包括吗啡累积用量、首次活动时间、发病率和死亡率、住院时间和不良事件。我们使用单变量和多变量回归分析来调整混杂因素,并应用广义估计方程。结果:纳入104例患者;MMA组和PCA组分别为42例和62例。MMA组患者术后第1天疼痛评分显著降低(P = 0.002),术后72小时吗啡用量显著降低(P)。结论:与静脉PCA相比,MMA联合持续周围神经阻滞可有效镇痛,减少阿片类药物消耗,有利于早期活动。需要进一步的随机对照试验来证实这些发现。
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
自引率
3.80%
发文量
55
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书