Rectus sheath catheters reduce opiate use in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a pre- and postintervention cohort study.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Canadian Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2023-07-13 Print Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1503/cjs.006922
Patrick L C Tapley, Martin Van der Vyver, Natalie G Coburn, Julie Hallet, Calvin Law, Rachel Roke, Paul J Karanicolas
{"title":"Rectus sheath catheters reduce opiate use in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a pre- and postintervention cohort study.","authors":"Patrick L C Tapley, Martin Van der Vyver, Natalie G Coburn, Julie Hallet, Calvin Law, Rachel Roke, Paul J Karanicolas","doi":"10.1503/cjs.006922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the only curative option for patients with pancreatic cancer; however, pain remains a considerable problem postoperatively. With many centres moving away from using epidural analgesia, there is the need to evaluate alternative opiate sparing techniques for postoperative analgesia. We sought to determine if rectus sheath catheters (RSCs) had an opiate sparing and analgesic effect compared with standard care alone (opiate analgesia).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective pre- and postintervention cohort study of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at a single tertiary academic hospital in Toronto, Canada, between April 2018 and December 2019. All patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy were eligible for inclusion. Among the 101 patients identified, 84 (61 control, 23 RSCs) were analyzed after exclusion criteria were applied (epidural analgesia, admission to intensive care intubated or reintubated within the first 96 hours). The pre-intervention group received a semi-standardized course of analgesics, including intravenous hydromorphone, acetaminophen, ketamine, with or without nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, and with or without intravenous lidocaine; the latter 2 drugs were at the individual anesthesiologist and surgeon's preference. For the postintervention group, the same course of analgesics were used, with the addition of RSCs. These were inserted at the end of the operation, with a loading dose of ropivacaine administered and followed by a programmed intermittent bolus regime for 72-96 hours. The primary outcome measure was total postoperative opiate consumption (oral morphine equivalents). Secondary outcomes included pain scores (numeric rating scale) and treatment-related adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Opiate consumption (oral morphine equivalents) at 96 hours was significantly lower (median 188 mg, interquartile range [IQR] 112-228 v. 242.4 mg, IQR 166.8-352) with and without RSC, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.01). The RSC group used significantly less opiates at each time point from 24 hours postoperatively, with no significant difference in pain scores between the groups and no significant catheter-related complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of RSCs was associated with significant reductions in postoperative opiate consumption. Given the ease of placement and management, with minimal complications, RSCs should be incorporated into a course of postoperative multimodal analgesia. A large scale randomized controlled trial should be conducted to further investigate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9573,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Surgery","volume":"66 4","pages":"E367-E377"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a9/9f/066E367.PMC10355997.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.006922","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the only curative option for patients with pancreatic cancer; however, pain remains a considerable problem postoperatively. With many centres moving away from using epidural analgesia, there is the need to evaluate alternative opiate sparing techniques for postoperative analgesia. We sought to determine if rectus sheath catheters (RSCs) had an opiate sparing and analgesic effect compared with standard care alone (opiate analgesia).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective pre- and postintervention cohort study of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at a single tertiary academic hospital in Toronto, Canada, between April 2018 and December 2019. All patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy were eligible for inclusion. Among the 101 patients identified, 84 (61 control, 23 RSCs) were analyzed after exclusion criteria were applied (epidural analgesia, admission to intensive care intubated or reintubated within the first 96 hours). The pre-intervention group received a semi-standardized course of analgesics, including intravenous hydromorphone, acetaminophen, ketamine, with or without nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, and with or without intravenous lidocaine; the latter 2 drugs were at the individual anesthesiologist and surgeon's preference. For the postintervention group, the same course of analgesics were used, with the addition of RSCs. These were inserted at the end of the operation, with a loading dose of ropivacaine administered and followed by a programmed intermittent bolus regime for 72-96 hours. The primary outcome measure was total postoperative opiate consumption (oral morphine equivalents). Secondary outcomes included pain scores (numeric rating scale) and treatment-related adverse effects.

Results: Opiate consumption (oral morphine equivalents) at 96 hours was significantly lower (median 188 mg, interquartile range [IQR] 112-228 v. 242.4 mg, IQR 166.8-352) with and without RSC, respectively (p = 0.01). The RSC group used significantly less opiates at each time point from 24 hours postoperatively, with no significant difference in pain scores between the groups and no significant catheter-related complications.

Conclusion: The use of RSCs was associated with significant reductions in postoperative opiate consumption. Given the ease of placement and management, with minimal complications, RSCs should be incorporated into a course of postoperative multimodal analgesia. A large scale randomized controlled trial should be conducted to further investigate these findings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

直肌鞘导管减少胰十二指肠切除术中阿片类药物的使用:干预前后队列研究。
背景:胰十二指肠切除术是胰腺癌患者唯一的治疗选择;然而,术后疼痛仍然是一个相当大的问题。随着许多中心不再使用硬膜外镇痛,有必要评估术后镇痛的替代阿片类药物节约技术。我们试图确定与标准治疗(阿片类镇痛)相比,直肌鞘导管(RSCs)是否具有阿片类镇痛效果。方法:我们对2018年4月至2019年12月在加拿大多伦多一家三级学术医院接受胰十二指肠切除术的患者进行了回顾性干预前和干预后队列研究。所有接受胰十二指肠切除术的患者均符合纳入条件。在确定的101例患者中,采用排除标准(硬膜外镇痛、前96小时内入住重症监护室插管或再插管)后,对84例患者(61例为对照组,23例为RSCs)进行分析。干预前组给予半标准化疗程的镇痛药物,包括静脉注射氢吗啡酮、对乙酰氨基酚、氯胺酮,加或不加非甾体类抗炎药,加或不加静脉注射利多卡因;后两种药物由麻醉师和外科医生个人选择。干预后组使用相同疗程的镇痛药,并添加RSCs。这些在手术结束时插入,同时给予负荷剂量的罗哌卡因,随后是72-96小时的程序性间歇注射方案。主要结局指标是术后阿片类药物总消耗量(口服吗啡当量)。次要结局包括疼痛评分(数值评定量表)和治疗相关的不良反应。结果:有RSC组和无RSC组96小时阿片类药物消耗量(口服吗啡当量)显著降低(中位数188 mg,四分位数范围[IQR] 112-228 vs 242.4 mg, IQR 166.8-352) (p = 0.01)。RSC组术后24小时起各时间点阿片类药物使用量均显著减少,组间疼痛评分无显著差异,无明显导管相关并发症。结论:RSCs的使用与术后阿片类药物消耗的显著减少有关。由于易于放置和管理,并发症最少,RSCs应纳入术后多模式镇痛疗程。需要进行大规模的随机对照试验来进一步研究这些发现。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
120
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of CJS is to contribute to the meaningful continuing medical education of Canadian surgical specialists, and to provide surgeons with an effective vehicle for the dissemination of observations in the areas of clinical and basic science research.
×
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