Abstract

BackgroundThoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is recommended for post-operative pain relief in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision. However, the effectiveness of TEA is variable with high failure rates reported post-operatively. Common side effects such as low blood pressure and motor block can reduce mobility and hinder recovery, and a number of rare but serious complications can also occur following their use.Rectus sheath catheters (RSC) may provide a novel alternative approach to somatic analgesia without the associated adverse effects of TEA. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of both techniques in terms of pain relief, patient experience, post-operative functional recovery, safety and cost-effectiveness.Methods/designThis is a single-centre randomised controlled non-blinded trial, which also includes a nested qualitative study. Over a two-year period, 132 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision will be randomised to receive either TEA or RSC for post-operative analgesia. The primary outcome measures pain scores on moving from a supine to a sitting position at 24 hours post wound closure, and the patient experience between groups evaluated through in-depth interviews. Secondary outcomes include pain scores at rest and on movement at other time points, opiate consumption, functional recovery, morbidity and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionThis will be the first randomised controlled trial comparing thoracic epidurals to ultrasound-guided rectus sheath catheters in adults undergoing elective midline laparotomy. The standardised care provided by an Enhanced Recovery Programme makes this a comparison between two complex pain packages and not simply two analgesic techniques, in order to ascertain if RSC is a viable alternative to TEA.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN81223298 (16 January 2014).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-400) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is recommended for post-operative pain relief in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision

  • The standardised care provided by an Enhanced Recovery Programme makes this a comparison between two complex pain packages and not two analgesic techniques, in order to ascertain if Rectus sheath catheters (RSC) is a viable alternative to TEA

  • Epidurals are in routine use in the National Health Service (NHS) [2,18], and their risks and benefits are well described; this study does not confer any additional risk to trial patients

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is recommended for post-operative pain relief in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery via a midline incision. The effectiveness of TEA is variable with high failure rates reported post-operatively. Common side effects such as low blood pressure and motor block can reduce mobility and hinder recovery, and a number of rare but serious complications can occur following their use. One of the key elements in all ERP is the provision of adequate post-operative analgesia This reduces the stress response, improves patient wellbeing and allows early mobilisation. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), which facilitates dynamic analgesia and early mobilisation, is currently the standard for post-operative analgesia following major abdominal surgery within ERP [1]

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.