开腹胰十二指肠切除术后局部伤口持续输液脊髓镇痛与胸硬膜外镇痛的对比。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Harrison Davies, Ngee-Soon Lau, Michael Wilson, Sivakumar Gananadha
{"title":"开腹胰十二指肠切除术后局部伤口持续输液脊髓镇痛与胸硬膜外镇痛的对比。","authors":"Harrison Davies, Ngee-Soon Lau, Michael Wilson, Sivakumar Gananadha","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03534-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current gold standard for postoperative analgesia following a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). Spinal analgesia with continuous wound infusion (CWI) of local anaesthetic is an emerging alternative modality. This non-inferiority study aimed to compare CWI with spinal analgesia to TEA and assess its impact on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective observational analysis of patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy through a midline laparotomy. A total of 74 patients were included in the study forming two groups: CWI (n = 33) and TEA (n = 41).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TEA resulted in lower median pain scores at rest (p = 0.002) and with coughing (p = 0.005) on postoperative day 2. CWI was non-inferior to TEA for all other pain outcomes measures from days 0-5. Patients in the CWI group had a shorter time to first bowel motion (p = 0.001), commencement of a liquid diet (p = 0.04), earlier removal of nasogastric tube (p = 0.005), abdominal drain (p = 0.003) and indwelling catheter (p < 0.001). Analgesic failure and postoperative nausea and vomiting were also less frequent (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Local CWI with spinal analgesia was non-inferior to TEA for pain management in open pancreaticoduodenectomy. CWI demonstrated advantages in measures associated with enhanced recovery after surgery programs without disadvantages in terms of analgesia requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"409 1","pages":"344"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spinal analgesia with continuous local wound infusion vs thoracic epidural analgesia after open pancreaticoduodenectomy.\",\"authors\":\"Harrison Davies, Ngee-Soon Lau, Michael Wilson, Sivakumar Gananadha\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-024-03534-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current gold standard for postoperative analgesia following a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). Spinal analgesia with continuous wound infusion (CWI) of local anaesthetic is an emerging alternative modality. This non-inferiority study aimed to compare CWI with spinal analgesia to TEA and assess its impact on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective observational analysis of patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy through a midline laparotomy. A total of 74 patients were included in the study forming two groups: CWI (n = 33) and TEA (n = 41).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TEA resulted in lower median pain scores at rest (p = 0.002) and with coughing (p = 0.005) on postoperative day 2. CWI was non-inferior to TEA for all other pain outcomes measures from days 0-5. Patients in the CWI group had a shorter time to first bowel motion (p = 0.001), commencement of a liquid diet (p = 0.04), earlier removal of nasogastric tube (p = 0.005), abdominal drain (p = 0.003) and indwelling catheter (p < 0.001). Analgesic failure and postoperative nausea and vomiting were also less frequent (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Local CWI with spinal analgesia was non-inferior to TEA for pain management in open pancreaticoduodenectomy. CWI demonstrated advantages in measures associated with enhanced recovery after surgery programs without disadvantages in terms of analgesia requirements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"409 1\",\"pages\":\"344\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03534-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03534-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前,胰十二指肠切除术(PD)术后镇痛的金标准是胸硬膜外镇痛(TEA)。通过伤口持续输注(CWI)局麻药进行脊柱镇痛是一种新兴的替代方式。这项非劣效性研究旨在比较脊髓镇痛 CWI 与 TEA,并评估其对临床结果的影响:方法:对通过中线开腹手术进行开腹胰十二指肠切除术的患者进行回顾性观察分析。研究共纳入了 74 名患者,分为两组:结果:结果:术后第 2 天,TEA 可降低静息时(p = 0.002)和咳嗽时(p = 0.005)的中位疼痛评分。在术后第 0-5 天的所有其他疼痛结果测量中,CWI 均不劣于 TEA。CWI 组患者首次排便时间(p = 0.001)、开始流质饮食时间(p = 0.04)、拔除鼻胃管时间(p = 0.005)、腹腔引流管时间(p = 0.003)和留置导尿管时间(p 结论:CWI 组患者在术后第 2 天出现咳嗽(p = 0.005),术后第 3 天出现咳嗽(p = 0.001),术后第 4 天出现咳嗽(p = 0.005),术后第 5 天出现咳嗽(p = 0.005):在开腹胰十二指肠切除术中,局部CWI加脊髓镇痛的镇痛效果并不优于TEA。CWI 在促进术后恢复的相关措施方面具有优势,但在镇痛要求方面没有劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Spinal analgesia with continuous local wound infusion vs thoracic epidural analgesia after open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Background: The current gold standard for postoperative analgesia following a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). Spinal analgesia with continuous wound infusion (CWI) of local anaesthetic is an emerging alternative modality. This non-inferiority study aimed to compare CWI with spinal analgesia to TEA and assess its impact on clinical outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective observational analysis of patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy through a midline laparotomy. A total of 74 patients were included in the study forming two groups: CWI (n = 33) and TEA (n = 41).

Results: TEA resulted in lower median pain scores at rest (p = 0.002) and with coughing (p = 0.005) on postoperative day 2. CWI was non-inferior to TEA for all other pain outcomes measures from days 0-5. Patients in the CWI group had a shorter time to first bowel motion (p = 0.001), commencement of a liquid diet (p = 0.04), earlier removal of nasogastric tube (p = 0.005), abdominal drain (p = 0.003) and indwelling catheter (p < 0.001). Analgesic failure and postoperative nausea and vomiting were also less frequent (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively).

Conclusion: Local CWI with spinal analgesia was non-inferior to TEA for pain management in open pancreaticoduodenectomy. CWI demonstrated advantages in measures associated with enhanced recovery after surgery programs without disadvantages in terms of analgesia requirements.

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
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
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