Comparative evaluation of the perioperative anesthesia methods for cancer patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenal resections are one of the most traumatic and technically complex interventions in abdominal surgery. The correct anesthetic management and pain relief allow to substantially reduce the risk of perioperative complications, which remains high even in high-volume oncology centers with extensive experience. Finding new components and methods of anesthesia combined with evaluation of their effectiveness and safety remains a pressing issue.
 AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of using intravenous lidocaine infusion as a component of anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in cancer patients during pancreatoduodenal resection.
 MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the course of anesthesia, operation and postoperative period of 43 patients (mean age 63.2±7.1 years) undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. For the purposes of the study, patients were randomly divided into 2 groups, based on anesthesia method: for the first group (n=19) we used epidural analgesia as a component of perioperative anesthesia, for the second group (n=24) we used prolonged intravenous infusion of lidocaine at an average dose of 1 mg/(kg×h). We analyzed the severity of pain syndrome according to Numeric rating scale for pain in postoperative period, as well as opioid requirement, the time of gastrointestinal function recovery, and post-operative complications frequency. In order to prevent systemic toxicity, drug monitoring was carried out — the determination of the plasma concentration of lidocaine.
 RESULTS: Perioperative opioid requirement was comparable between groups, with no statistically significant differences observed. The degree of pain syndrome according to the Numeric rating scale for pain did not differ statistically, except for the number of points during activation on day 3: 4.00 (95% confidence interval 3.49–4.51) for epidural analgesia group, compared to 3.12 (95% confidence interval 2.64–3.61) for lidocaine infusion group, p=0.014. There was also a statistically significant increase in infusion volume for epidural analgesia group compared to lidocaine infusion group [8.83 ml/(kg×h) (Q1=7.90; Q3=10.06) and 7.33 ml/(kg×h) (Q1=6.28–Q3=8.49) respectively, p=0.034], as well as a greater need for intraoperative vasopressor support among the patients [15 (78.9%) and 10 (43.5%) respectively, p=0.029]. In the lidocaine group, the time to onset of peristalsis was significantly shorter than in the epidural analgesia group [median 48.0 h (Q1=48.00; Q3=72.00) compared to median 60.0 h (Q1=36.00; Q3=64.50) respectively, p=0.042]. The frequency of postoperative complications did not differ between the groups.
 CONCLUSION: Based on a comparative analysis of the study results, it can be concluded that prolonged intravenous infusion of lidocaine, as a component of perioperative anesthetic protection during pancreatoduodenal resections, is safe and comparable in terms of analgesic efficacy to epidural blockade.