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。

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言随着非卧床脊柱手术的增加,高效的恢复和出院变得至关重要。多模式镇痛优于单独使用阿片类药物。对乙酰氨基酚是多模式方案的核心组成部分,静脉注射和口服均可使用。虽然静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚有一定的优势,但在非住院脊柱手术中缺乏以患者为中心的前瞻性研究。在成本方面也存在巨大差异。我们假设静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚可减少阿片类药物的用量并改善恢复效果:接受非住院脊柱手术的患者随机接受术前口服安慰剂和术中静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚或术前口服对乙酰氨基酚。所有患者均接受全身麻醉和多模式镇痛。主要结果是以静脉注射吗啡毫克当量(MMEs)为单位的 24 小时阿片类药物使用量,从到达麻醉后护理病房(PACU)开始计算。次要结果包括疼痛、恢复质量(QoR)-15评分、术后恶心和呕吐、恢复时间以及疼痛灾难化、QoR-15和疼痛之间的相关性:共有 82 名患者纳入最终分析。两组患者的人口统计学特征相似。就主要结果而言,两组 24 小时 MMEs 中位数无差异(12.6 (4.0, 27.1) vs 12.0 (4.0, 29.5) mg,P=0.893)。术后疼痛评分、PACU MMEs、QoR-15 评分和恢复时间均无差异。斯皮尔曼相关性显示,术后阿片类药物的使用与 QoR-15 呈中度负相关:结论:在非住院脊柱手术患者中,静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚并不比口服药物更有优势。结论:静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚在非卧床脊柱手术患者中并不具有优势,这并不支持常规使用更昂贵的静脉注射药物来改善恢复和加速出院:试验注册号:NCT04574778。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

Trial registration number: NCT04574778.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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).
×
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