Fulltext

Influence of thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative pain relief and ileus after laparoscopic colorectal resection : Benefit with epidural analgesia

Zingg, Urs ; Miskovic, Danilo ; Hamel, Christian ; Erni, Lukas ; Oertli, Daniel ; Metzger, Urs

In: Surgical Endoscopy, 2009, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 276-282

Ajouter à la liste personnelle
    Titre
    • Influence of thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative pain relief and ileus after laparoscopic colorectal resection
      Benefit with epidural analgesia
    Auteur
    • Zingg, Urs. Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
    • Miskovic, Danilo. Department of Surgery, Triemli Hospital, Birmensdorferstr. 497, 8063, Zurich, Switzerland
    • Hamel, Christian. Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
    • Erni, Lukas. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Triemli Hospital, Birmensdorferstr. 497, 8063, Zurich, Switzerland
    • Oertli, Daniel. Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
    • Metzger, Urs. Department of Surgery, Triemli Hospital, Birmensdorferstr. 497, 8063, Zurich, Switzerland
    Type de document
    • Postprint
    Identifiant OAI-PMH
    • oai:doc.rero.ch:315233
    Summary
    Background: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) provides superior analgesia with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus when compared with systemic opiate analgesia in open colorectal surgery. However, in laparoscopic colorectal surgery the role of TEA is not well defined. This prospective observational study investigates the influence of TEA in laparoscopic colorectal resections. Methods: All patients undergoing colorectal resection between November 2004 and February 2007 were assessed for inclusion into a prospective randomized trial investigating the influence of bisacodyl on postoperative ileus. All patients treated by laparoscopic resection from this collective were eligible for the present study. Primary endpoints were use of analgesics and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores. Secondary endpoint concerned full gastrointestinal recovery, defined as the mean time to the occurrence of the following three events (GI-3): first flatus passed, first defecation, and first solid food tolerated. Results: 75 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection, 39 in the TEA group and 36 in the non-TEA group. Patients with TEA required significantly less analgesics (metamizol median 3.0g [0-32g] versus 13.8g [0-28g] (p<0.001); opioids mean 12mg [±2.8mg standard error of mean, SEM] versus 103mg [±18.2mg SEM] (p<0.001). VAS scores were significantly lower in the TEA group (overall mean 1.67 [± 0.2 SEM] versus 2.58 [±0.2 SEM]; p=0.004). Mean time to gastrointestinal recovery (GI-3) was significantly shorter (2.96 [±0.2 SEM] days versus 3.81 [±0.3 SEM] days; p=0.025). Analysis of the subgroup of patients with laparoscopically completed resections showed corresponding results. Conclusion: TEA provides a significant benefit in terms of less analgesic consumption, better postoperative pain relief, and faster recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection