比较疼痛管理策略以减少游离皮瓣乳房重建术后阿片类药物的使用:疼痛导管与神经阻滞以及口服止痛方案的改进

A. Stefansdottir, Luis Vieira, Arni Johnsen, Daniel Isacson, Andres Rodriguez, Maria Mani
{"title":"比较疼痛管理策略以减少游离皮瓣乳房重建术后阿片类药物的使用:疼痛导管与神经阻滞以及口服止痛方案的改进","authors":"A. Stefansdottir, Luis Vieira, Arni Johnsen, Daniel Isacson, Andres Rodriguez, Maria Mani","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1777673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background Perioperative management in autologous breast reconstruction has gained focus in recent years. This study compares two pain management protocols in patients undergoing abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction: a past protocol (PP) and a current protocol (CP)—both intended to reduce opioid consumption postoperatively. The PP entails use of a pain catheter in the abdominal wound and the CP consists of an intraoperative nerve block in addition to refinements in the oral pain management. We hypothesize that the CP reduces opioid consumption compared to PP.\n Methods From December 2017 to January 2020, 102 patients underwent breast reconstruction with an abdominal-based free flap. Two postoperative pain management strategies were used during the period; from December 2017 to September 2018, the PP was used which entailed the use of a pain catheter with ropivacaine applied in the abdominal wound with continuous distribution postoperatively in addition to paracetamol orally and oxycodone orally pro re nata (PRN). From October 2018 to January 2020, the CP was used. This protocol included a combination of intraoperative subfascial nerve block and a postoperative oral pain management regime that consisted of paracetamol, celecoxib, and gabapentin as well as oxycodone PRN.\n Results The CP group (n = 63) had lower opioid consumption compared to the PP group (n = 39) when examining all aspects of opioid consumption, including daily opioid usage in morphine milligram equivalents and total opioid usage during the stay (p < 0.001). The CP group had shorter length of hospital stay (LOS).\n Conclusion Introduction of the CP reduced opioid use and LOS was shorter.","PeriodicalId":505284,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Plastic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Pain Management Strategies to Reduce Opioid Use Postoperatively in Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: Pain Catheter versus Nerve Block in Addition to Refinements in the Oral Pain Management Regime\",\"authors\":\"A. Stefansdottir, Luis Vieira, Arni Johnsen, Daniel Isacson, Andres Rodriguez, Maria Mani\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1777673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background Perioperative management in autologous breast reconstruction has gained focus in recent years. This study compares two pain management protocols in patients undergoing abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction: a past protocol (PP) and a current protocol (CP)—both intended to reduce opioid consumption postoperatively. The PP entails use of a pain catheter in the abdominal wound and the CP consists of an intraoperative nerve block in addition to refinements in the oral pain management. We hypothesize that the CP reduces opioid consumption compared to PP.\\n Methods From December 2017 to January 2020, 102 patients underwent breast reconstruction with an abdominal-based free flap. Two postoperative pain management strategies were used during the period; from December 2017 to September 2018, the PP was used which entailed the use of a pain catheter with ropivacaine applied in the abdominal wound with continuous distribution postoperatively in addition to paracetamol orally and oxycodone orally pro re nata (PRN). From October 2018 to January 2020, the CP was used. This protocol included a combination of intraoperative subfascial nerve block and a postoperative oral pain management regime that consisted of paracetamol, celecoxib, and gabapentin as well as oxycodone PRN.\\n Results The CP group (n = 63) had lower opioid consumption compared to the PP group (n = 39) when examining all aspects of opioid consumption, including daily opioid usage in morphine milligram equivalents and total opioid usage during the stay (p < 0.001). The CP group had shorter length of hospital stay (LOS).\\n Conclusion Introduction of the CP reduced opioid use and LOS was shorter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1777673\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1777673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 近年来,自体乳房重建术的围手术期管理越来越受到关注。本研究比较了腹部游离皮瓣乳房重建术患者的两种疼痛管理方案:一种是过去的方案(PP),另一种是当前的方案(CP),这两种方案都旨在减少术后阿片类药物的用量。过去的方案需要在腹部伤口处使用止痛导管,而现在的方案除了改进口服止痛药外,还包括术中神经阻滞。我们假设,与 PP 相比,CP 可减少阿片类药物的消耗。方法 从 2017 年 12 月到 2020 年 1 月,102 名患者接受了腹部游离皮瓣乳房重建术。在此期间使用了两种术后疼痛管理策略:2017 年 12 月至 2018 年 9 月,使用了 PP,即除了口服扑热息痛和口服羟考酮(PRN)外,还在腹部伤口处使用带有罗哌卡因的止痛导管,并在术后持续分布。从 2018 年 10 月至 2020 年 1 月,使用了 CP。该方案包括术中筋膜下神经阻滞和术后口服止痛方案,其中包括扑热息痛、塞来昔布、加巴喷丁以及羟考酮口服止痛药(PRN)。结果 CP组(n = 63)与PP组(n = 39)相比,在阿片类药物消耗的各个方面,包括以吗啡毫克当量计算的每日阿片类药物用量和住院期间阿片类药物总用量方面,CP组(n = 63)的阿片类药物消耗量均低于PP组(p < 0.001)。CP 组的住院时间(LOS)更短。结论 采用 CP 可减少阿片类药物的使用量,缩短住院时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Pain Management Strategies to Reduce Opioid Use Postoperatively in Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: Pain Catheter versus Nerve Block in Addition to Refinements in the Oral Pain Management Regime
Background Perioperative management in autologous breast reconstruction has gained focus in recent years. This study compares two pain management protocols in patients undergoing abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction: a past protocol (PP) and a current protocol (CP)—both intended to reduce opioid consumption postoperatively. The PP entails use of a pain catheter in the abdominal wound and the CP consists of an intraoperative nerve block in addition to refinements in the oral pain management. We hypothesize that the CP reduces opioid consumption compared to PP. Methods From December 2017 to January 2020, 102 patients underwent breast reconstruction with an abdominal-based free flap. Two postoperative pain management strategies were used during the period; from December 2017 to September 2018, the PP was used which entailed the use of a pain catheter with ropivacaine applied in the abdominal wound with continuous distribution postoperatively in addition to paracetamol orally and oxycodone orally pro re nata (PRN). From October 2018 to January 2020, the CP was used. This protocol included a combination of intraoperative subfascial nerve block and a postoperative oral pain management regime that consisted of paracetamol, celecoxib, and gabapentin as well as oxycodone PRN. Results The CP group (n = 63) had lower opioid consumption compared to the PP group (n = 39) when examining all aspects of opioid consumption, including daily opioid usage in morphine milligram equivalents and total opioid usage during the stay (p < 0.001). The CP group had shorter length of hospital stay (LOS). Conclusion Introduction of the CP reduced opioid use and LOS was shorter.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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