Eric S Schwenk, Polina Ferd, Marc C Torjman, Chris J Li, Alex R Charlton, Vivian Z Yan, Michael A McCurdy, Christopher K Kepler, Gregory D Schroeder, Andrew N Fleischman, Tariq Issa
{"title":"静脉注射与口服对乙酰氨基酚治疗非卧床脊椎手术后的疼痛和恢复质量:随机对照试验。","authors":"Eric S Schwenk, Polina Ferd, Marc C Torjman, Chris J Li, Alex R Charlton, Vivian Z Yan, Michael A McCurdy, Christopher K Kepler, Gregory D Schroeder, Andrew N Fleischman, Tariq Issa","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As ambulatory spine surgery increases, efficient recovery and discharge become essential. Multimodal analgesia is superior to opioids alone. Acetaminophen is a central component of multimodal protocols and both intravenous and oral forms are used. While some advantages for intravenous acetaminophen have been touted, prospective studies with patient-centered outcomes are lacking in ambulatory spine surgery. A substantial cost difference exists. We hypothesized that intravenous acetaminophen would be associated with fewer opioids and better recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing ambulatory spine surgery were randomized to preoperative oral placebo and intraoperative intravenous acetaminophen or preoperative oral acetaminophen. All patients received general anesthesia and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was 24-hour opioid use in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), beginning with arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included pain, Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, recovery time, and correlations between pain catastrophizing, QoR-15, and pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 82 patients were included in final analyses. Demographics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the median 24-hour MMEs did not differ between groups (12.6 (4.0, 27.1) vs 12.0 (4.0, 29.5) mg, p=0.893). Postoperative pain ratings, PACU MMEs, QoR-15 scores, and recovery time showed no differences. Spearman's correlation showed a moderate negative correlation between postoperative opioid use and QoR-15.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intravenous acetaminophen was not superior to the oral form in ambulatory spine surgery patients. This does not support routine use of the more expensive intravenous form to improve recovery and accelerate discharge.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04574778.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"483-488"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intravenous versus oral acetaminophen for pain and quality of recovery after ambulatory spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Eric S Schwenk, Polina Ferd, Marc C Torjman, Chris J Li, Alex R Charlton, Vivian Z Yan, Michael A McCurdy, Christopher K Kepler, Gregory D Schroeder, Andrew N Fleischman, Tariq Issa\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/rapm-2024-105386\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As ambulatory spine surgery increases, efficient recovery and discharge become essential. Multimodal analgesia is superior to opioids alone. Acetaminophen is a central component of multimodal protocols and both intravenous and oral forms are used. While some advantages for intravenous acetaminophen have been touted, prospective studies with patient-centered outcomes are lacking in ambulatory spine surgery. A substantial cost difference exists. We hypothesized that intravenous acetaminophen would be associated with fewer opioids and better recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing ambulatory spine surgery were randomized to preoperative oral placebo and intraoperative intravenous acetaminophen or preoperative oral acetaminophen. All patients received general anesthesia and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was 24-hour opioid use in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), beginning with arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included pain, Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, recovery time, and correlations between pain catastrophizing, QoR-15, and pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 82 patients were included in final analyses. Demographics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the median 24-hour MMEs did not differ between groups (12.6 (4.0, 27.1) vs 12.0 (4.0, 29.5) mg, p=0.893). Postoperative pain ratings, PACU MMEs, QoR-15 scores, and recovery time showed no differences. Spearman's correlation showed a moderate negative correlation between postoperative opioid use and QoR-15.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intravenous acetaminophen was not superior to the oral form in ambulatory spine surgery patients. This does not support routine use of the more expensive intravenous form to improve recovery and accelerate discharge.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04574778.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"483-488\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105386\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105386","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Intravenous versus oral acetaminophen for pain and quality of recovery after ambulatory spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Introduction: As ambulatory spine surgery increases, efficient recovery and discharge become essential. Multimodal analgesia is superior to opioids alone. Acetaminophen is a central component of multimodal protocols and both intravenous and oral forms are used. While some advantages for intravenous acetaminophen have been touted, prospective studies with patient-centered outcomes are lacking in ambulatory spine surgery. A substantial cost difference exists. We hypothesized that intravenous acetaminophen would be associated with fewer opioids and better recovery.
Methods: Patients undergoing ambulatory spine surgery were randomized to preoperative oral placebo and intraoperative intravenous acetaminophen or preoperative oral acetaminophen. All patients received general anesthesia and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was 24-hour opioid use in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), beginning with arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included pain, Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, recovery time, and correlations between pain catastrophizing, QoR-15, and pain.
Results: A total of 82 patients were included in final analyses. Demographics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the median 24-hour MMEs did not differ between groups (12.6 (4.0, 27.1) vs 12.0 (4.0, 29.5) mg, p=0.893). Postoperative pain ratings, PACU MMEs, QoR-15 scores, and recovery time showed no differences. Spearman's correlation showed a moderate negative correlation between postoperative opioid use and QoR-15.
Conclusion: Intravenous acetaminophen was not superior to the oral form in ambulatory spine surgery patients. This does not support routine use of the more expensive intravenous form to improve recovery and accelerate discharge.
期刊介绍:
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications.
Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).