罗哌卡因(0.25%)经腹横面与硬膜外镇痛对剖腹中线术后疼痛缓解的患者控制:单中心开放标签随机对照试验(无线试验)

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Pankaj Kumar, Kallol Kumar Das Poddar, Upendra Hansda, Swagata Tripathy, Bhaskar Rao, Tushar Subhadarshan Mishra, Dillip Muduly, Prakash Kumar Sasmal
{"title":"罗哌卡因(0.25%)经腹横面与硬膜外镇痛对剖腹中线术后疼痛缓解的患者控制:单中心开放标签随机对照试验(无线试验)","authors":"Pankaj Kumar, Kallol Kumar Das Poddar, Upendra Hansda, Swagata Tripathy, Bhaskar Rao, Tushar Subhadarshan Mishra, Dillip Muduly, Prakash Kumar Sasmal","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The WIRELESS trial compared the postoperative analgesic effect of the bilateral transversus abdominis plane patient-controlled analgesia (TAP-PCA) with that of epidural patient-controlled analgesia (E-PCA) using ropivacaine 0.25%.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A hundred patients aged between 18 and 85 years and planned for upper midline laparotomy (Class I and II wounds) under general anesthesia were randomized into TAP-PCA (50) and E-PCA (50) groups. The PCA pump used for the study was designed to deliver a baseline infusion rate of 5 mL/hour (0.25%). The patients were instructed to press the PCA button, as and when required to deliver an additional dose of 2 mL, with 15-minutes lockout period. Both groups received 1 g of paracetamol infusion every 8 hours. The pain score was evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours and then every 12 hours till 72 hours postoperatively. The requirements of rescue analgesia (injection tramadol), out-of-bed mobilization, and recovery of bowel function were recorded. Drug-related side effects and catheter-related complications were also noted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five (10%) patients in the TAP arm and 17 (34%) patients in the epidural arm could not complete the study due to complications/failure. The intention-to-treat analysis indicates that VAS scores were similar in both groups (47 in the epidural PCA group and 48 in the TAP-PCA group) at 3, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 hours. Rescue analgesia (tramadol) was similar in both groups (0.21, 0.58 vs. 0.13, 0.44). There were no significant differences observed between the 2 groups in terms of out-of-bed mobilization and pulmonary complications. Nonetheless, the TAP arm showed the earlier passage of the first flatus and a shorter hospital stay compared with the epidural arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PCA through the TAP route is not inferior to the epidural route for managing postoperative pain. Because of fewer contraindications and complications, TAP-PCA can be considered an alternative to epidural PCA.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-controlled Analgesia Using Ropivacaine (0.25%) Through Transversus Abdominis Plane vs. Epidural Route for Postoperative Pain Relief Following Midline Laparotomy: A Single Center Open-label Randomized Control Trial (Wireless Trial).\",\"authors\":\"Pankaj Kumar, Kallol Kumar Das Poddar, Upendra Hansda, Swagata Tripathy, Bhaskar Rao, Tushar Subhadarshan Mishra, Dillip Muduly, Prakash Kumar Sasmal\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001384\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The WIRELESS trial compared the postoperative analgesic effect of the bilateral transversus abdominis plane patient-controlled analgesia (TAP-PCA) with that of epidural patient-controlled analgesia (E-PCA) using ropivacaine 0.25%.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A hundred patients aged between 18 and 85 years and planned for upper midline laparotomy (Class I and II wounds) under general anesthesia were randomized into TAP-PCA (50) and E-PCA (50) groups. The PCA pump used for the study was designed to deliver a baseline infusion rate of 5 mL/hour (0.25%). The patients were instructed to press the PCA button, as and when required to deliver an additional dose of 2 mL, with 15-minutes lockout period. Both groups received 1 g of paracetamol infusion every 8 hours. The pain score was evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours and then every 12 hours till 72 hours postoperatively. The requirements of rescue analgesia (injection tramadol), out-of-bed mobilization, and recovery of bowel function were recorded. Drug-related side effects and catheter-related complications were also noted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five (10%) patients in the TAP arm and 17 (34%) patients in the epidural arm could not complete the study due to complications/failure. The intention-to-treat analysis indicates that VAS scores were similar in both groups (47 in the epidural PCA group and 48 in the TAP-PCA group) at 3, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 hours. Rescue analgesia (tramadol) was similar in both groups (0.21, 0.58 vs. 0.13, 0.44). There were no significant differences observed between the 2 groups in terms of out-of-bed mobilization and pulmonary complications. Nonetheless, the TAP arm showed the earlier passage of the first flatus and a shorter hospital stay compared with the epidural arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PCA through the TAP route is not inferior to the epidural route for managing postoperative pain. Because of fewer contraindications and complications, TAP-PCA can be considered an alternative to epidural PCA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001384\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001384","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

WIRELESS试验比较了0.25%罗哌卡因在双侧腹横面患者自控镇痛(TAP-PCA)和硬膜外患者自控镇痛(E-PCA)的术后镇痛效果。方法:选取100例年龄在18 ~ 85岁,全麻下拟行上中线剖腹手术(ⅰ、ⅱ类伤口)的患者,随机分为TAP-PCA组(50例)和E-PCA组(50例)。用于该研究的PCA泵被设计为提供5 mL/小时(0.25%)的基线输注速率。指示患者按下PCA按钮,当需要提供额外剂量2ml时,锁止时间为15分钟。两组患者每8小时输注扑热息痛1 g。分别于术后3、6、12、24小时及每12小时进行疼痛评分,直至术后72小时。记录救援镇痛(注射曲马多)、下床活动和肠功能恢复的要求。药物相关的副作用和导管相关的并发症也被注意到。结果:TAP组5例(10%)患者和硬膜外组17例(34%)患者因并发症/失败未能完成研究。意向治疗分析表明,两组在3、12、24、36、48、60和72小时的VAS评分相似(硬膜外PCA组为47分,TAP-PCA组为48分)。两组镇痛效果相似(0.21,0.58 vs. 0.13, 0.44)。两组在床下活动和肺部并发症方面无显著差异。尽管如此,与硬膜外组相比,TAP组显示第一次放屁通过时间更早,住院时间更短。结论:经TAP路径的PCA在处理术后疼痛方面并不逊色于硬膜外路径。由于较少的禁忌症和并发症,TAP-PCA可以被认为是硬膜外PCA的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient-controlled Analgesia Using Ropivacaine (0.25%) Through Transversus Abdominis Plane vs. Epidural Route for Postoperative Pain Relief Following Midline Laparotomy: A Single Center Open-label Randomized Control Trial (Wireless Trial).

Introduction: The WIRELESS trial compared the postoperative analgesic effect of the bilateral transversus abdominis plane patient-controlled analgesia (TAP-PCA) with that of epidural patient-controlled analgesia (E-PCA) using ropivacaine 0.25%.

Methodology: A hundred patients aged between 18 and 85 years and planned for upper midline laparotomy (Class I and II wounds) under general anesthesia were randomized into TAP-PCA (50) and E-PCA (50) groups. The PCA pump used for the study was designed to deliver a baseline infusion rate of 5 mL/hour (0.25%). The patients were instructed to press the PCA button, as and when required to deliver an additional dose of 2 mL, with 15-minutes lockout period. Both groups received 1 g of paracetamol infusion every 8 hours. The pain score was evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours and then every 12 hours till 72 hours postoperatively. The requirements of rescue analgesia (injection tramadol), out-of-bed mobilization, and recovery of bowel function were recorded. Drug-related side effects and catheter-related complications were also noted.

Results: Five (10%) patients in the TAP arm and 17 (34%) patients in the epidural arm could not complete the study due to complications/failure. The intention-to-treat analysis indicates that VAS scores were similar in both groups (47 in the epidural PCA group and 48 in the TAP-PCA group) at 3, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 hours. Rescue analgesia (tramadol) was similar in both groups (0.21, 0.58 vs. 0.13, 0.44). There were no significant differences observed between the 2 groups in terms of out-of-bed mobilization and pulmonary complications. Nonetheless, the TAP arm showed the earlier passage of the first flatus and a shorter hospital stay compared with the epidural arm.

Conclusion: PCA through the TAP route is not inferior to the epidural route for managing postoperative pain. Because of fewer contraindications and complications, TAP-PCA can be considered an alternative to epidural PCA.

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
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
×
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