Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia Research Articles

High-Volume Patient-Controlled Epidural Versus Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus for Labor Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Study

(Anaesthesia. 2023;78(9):1129–1138) Neuraxial labor analgesia is a well-established and effective method for managing pain during labor. The initiation of analgesia through epidural or combined spinal-epidural methods can be followed by various maintenance techniques, including continuous epidural infusion, manual intermittent boluses, patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), or a combination of these approaches. Adding PCEA to a continuous infusion was long-favored, demonstrating benefits such as reduced breakthrough pain incidents, lower local anesthetic consumption without compromising efficacy, and heightened patient satisfaction compared with continuous epidural infusion.

Feasibility and Analgesic Efficacy of Thoracolumbar Dorsal Ramus Nerve Block Using Multiorifice Pain Catheters for Scoliosis Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Approximately 38,000 scoliosis surgery correction operations are performed annually in the United States; these operations are associated with considerable postoperative pain which can be difficult to manage. This is largely attributed to an incision spanning multiple vertebral segments with paraspinal muscle dissection and retraction to facilitate the implantation of segmental hardware and rods. Frequently utilized analgesic modalities include intravenous patient-controlled analgesia and epidural analgesia, often in combination. We sought to ascertain the feasibility and analgesic efficacy of continuous thoracolumbar dorsal ramus nerve (TDRN) block using surgically placed multiorifice catheters. Forty-two patients diagnosed with idiopathic scoliosis who underwent a posterior spinal fusion (PSF) were enrolled after consent was obtained. Patients were managed utilizing a standardized Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol including a perioperative opioid-sparing regimen. Data were collected at specified time intervals during the recovery period. These data points included pain scores using the Numeric Rating Scale. Parenteral or both oral and parenteral opioid consumption doses were also collected every 4 hours. Any significant postoperative adverse events were recorded as well. A total of 42 patients had surgically placed TDRN catheters, and 40 patients were included in this study. The patients all reported low to moderate pain scores with low opioid consumption postoperatively, while the TDRN catheter delivery of local anesthetic analgesics did not result in significant complications. A regional technique utilizing TDRN catheters could be a valuable component of the postoperative pain management protocols for PSF surgery, and additional studies are warranted. This study evaluated the feasibility and analgesic efficacy of TDRN catheters for postoperative pain control following multilevel PSF for idiopathic scoliosis. Continuous local anesthetic delivery through TDRN catheters is a feasible and safe technique for postoperative pain control in these patients. Selective blockade of the dorsal rami might have benefits over epidural analgesia or other regional techniques.

Anesthesiological provision in hip and knee joint replacement (a scientific literature review)

Effective pain management during hip and knee replacement ensures the efficient and fast recovery of patients. Joint replacement surgery is typically accompanied by the use of general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia, despite certain risks, demonstrates better effectiveness compared to general anesthesia in hip and knee replacements. In other words, spinal anesthesia entails fewer perioperative complications. The addition of sedation and anesthesia monitoring during joint replacements using spinal anesthesia is of particular importance. After a successful surgical procedure of joint replacement, achieving adequate pain relief in the postoperative period is crucial. This is achieved through intravenous patient-controlled analgesia or epidural analgesia. A multimodal analgesia strategy combines analgesics with different mechanisms of action to enhance pain management. Intraoperative periarticular administration of multimodal agents is one of the most important procedures in the perioperative pain control during total hip arthroplasty. Peripheral nerve blocks have emerged recently as an alternative analgesic approach. During hip and knee replacements, various nerve blocks are utilized, including lumbar plexus block, fascia iliaca block, femoral and sciatic nerve block, adductor canal block, quadratus lumborum block, erector spinae plane block. Given the entire perioperative process, the use of preventive and multimodal therapy along with peripheral nerve blocks can help reduce the intensity of postoperative pain, thereby improving the functional status and quality of life for patients.

Epidural dexmedetomidine or esketamine versus fentanyl to decrease ropivacaine use for labor analgesia: A randomized non-inferiority study

BackgroundEpidural nonopioid adjuvants also reduce local anesthetic use. We aimed to test the hypothesis that, compared with the present standard fentanyl, the hourly consumption of local anesthetic was at least as good when dexmedetomidine or esketamine was combined with local anesthetic for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). MethodsA total of 120 laboring nulliparous subjects requiring labor analgesia were recruited for the final statistical analysis. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.075 % ropivacaine added with one of three equivalent adjuvants: 0.4 μg/mL fentanyl, 0.4 μg/mL dexmedetomidine, or 1.0 mg/mL esketamine. The primary outcome was hourly ropivacaine consumption. Compared with the fentanyl group, a 20 % difference in hourly local anesthetic consumption between the dexmedetomidine and esketamine groups was considered a clinical difference (non-inferiority margin). ResultsThe hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was 12.4 (95 % confidence interval CI 11.2 to 13.6) ml/h, so the prespecified non-inferiority limit was 2.5 ml/h. The hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was not inferior to that of the dexmedetomidine group (12.4 ml/h vs. 11.9 ml/h, risk difference, 0.5; 95 % confidence interval CI, −1.0 to 2.0, meeting criteria for non-inferiority). However, the hourly ropivacaine consumption of the esketamine group was 14.3 ml/h, and that of the fentanyl group was 12.4 ml/h (risk difference, 1.9, 95 % CI, 0.2 to 3.6), failing to confirm non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 20 %. The incidence of pruritus was highest in the fentanyl group, whereas the occurrence of mild dizziness was highest in the esketamine group. ConclusionsIn setting of the conditions of this study, epidural dexmedetomidine was non-inferior compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for PCEA during labor. Meanwhile, we failed to establish the non-inferiority of epidural esketamine compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for labor analgesia.

Comparison of Ultrasound-guided Bilateral Anterior Quadratus Lumborum Block at the Lateral Supra-arcuate Ligament with Conventional Epidural Block in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study

Abstract Background: To test the novel ultrasound (US)-guided bilateral anterior quadratus lumborum block (QLBA) at the lateral supra-arcuate ligament (supra-LAL) technique combined with postoperative intravenous analgesia was a viable alternative approach of conventional thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) for laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LRG). Methods: Three hundred and four patients scheduled for LRG were randomized 1:1 into QLBA group: receiving a novel pathway of US-guided bilateral QLBA at the supra-LAL before general anesthesia (GA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after surgery, and TEA group: receiving TEA before GA and patient-controlled epidural analgesia following surgery. The difference in procedure time between the treatment groups was set as the primary endpoint. Results: Compared to TEA, procedure time was significantly shorter in the QLBA group (13.19 ± 0.78 vs. 15.65 ± 3.49, P = 0.001). At 5–10 min after block, QLBA group achieved more dermatomes coverage of cold sensory block with both P < 0.001 and less influence on mean artery pressure. Intraoperative consumption of propofol and remifentanil were comparable between the two groups (1116.21 ± 199.76 vs. 1166.45 ± 125.31 ug, P = 0.245 and remifentanil 1.83 ± 0.41 vs. 1.81 ± 0.37 ng, P = 0.988). However, the QLBA group was associated with less intraoperative consumption of norepinephrine and atropine, shorter time to urinary catheter removal, and out-of-bed activity. No significant difference in extubation time, pain scores at rest and exercising across all time points postoperation was observed between two groups. Conclusion: Compared with conventional TEA, the novel technique combined with PCIA was an equivalent effective multimodal analgesic protocol for LRG. There were some advantages of technical simplicity with shorter procedure time, wider anesthetized dermatomes, less influence on intraoperative hemodynamic variables, fewer postoperative adverse events, and improved several sensible parameters of postoperative recovery. Trial Registration: The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on November 02, 2022 (ChiCTR2200065325).

Effects of different neuraxial analgesia modalities on the need for physician interventions in labour: A network meta-analysis.

Neuraxial labour analgesia can be initiated with epidural (EPL), combined spinal epidural (CSE) or dural puncture epidural (DPE) and maintained with continuous epidural infusion (CEI), patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), but the optimal analgesia modality is still controversial. To compare the effects of commonly used neuraxial analgesia modalities on the proportion of women needing physician interventions, as defined by the need for physician-administered epidural top-ups for inadequate analgesia in labour. Bayesian network meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Wanfang Data were searched from January 1988 to August 2023 without language restriction. Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more modalities of the following six neuraxial analgesia modalities in healthy labouring women: EPL+CEI+PCEA, EPL+PIEB+PCEA, CSE+CEI+PCEA, CSE+PIEB+PCEA, DPE+CEI+PCEA and DPE+PIEB+PCEA. Thirty studies with 8188 women were included. Compared with EPL+CEI+PCEA, EPL+PIEB+PCEA [odds ratio (OR) = 0.44; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.22 to 0.86], CSE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.29; 95% CrI, 0.12 to 0.71) and DPE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.19; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.42) significantly reduced the proportion of women needing physician interventions. DPE+PIEB+PCEA had fewer women needing physician interventions than all other modalities, except for CSE+PIEB+PCEA (OR = 0.63; 95% CrI, 0.25 to 1.62). There were no significant differences in local anaesthetic consumption, maximum pain score, and the incidence of instrumental delivery between the different neuraxial modalities. PIEB+PCEA is associated with a lower risk of physician interventions in labour than CEI+PCEA. DPE or CSE and PIEB+PCEA may be associated with a lower likelihood of physician interventions than other neuraxial modalities. Otherwise, the new neuraxial analgesia techniques do not appear to offer significant advantages over traditional techniques. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to limited data and methodological limitations. PROSPERO (CRD42023402540).

Optimum programmed intermittent epidural bolus interval time of ropivacaine 0.0625% with dexmedetomidine 0.4μg/ml at a fixed volume of 10mL: a randomized controlled trial.

The aim of our study was to administer adequate local anesthetic in programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) to avoid breakthrough pain and decrease the use of manual and PCEA boluses. We, therefore, conducted this study to determine the effective PIEB interval time between boluses of ropivacaine 0.0625% with dexmedetomidine 0.4μg/ml at a fixed volume of 10mL in 90% of subjects (EI90), without the use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). A total of 80 subjects were included in the final statistical analysis from 23 August 2022 to 22 November 2022. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of four different PIEB time intervals: 40, 50, 60, and 70min (groups 40, 50, 60, and 70), respectively. The primary outcome was the effective epidural labor analgesia, defined as no use of PCEA bolus or a manual bolus until the end of the first stage of labor or within 6hours after loading dose administration. The PIEB EI90 (95% CI) between boluses of ropivacaine 0.0625% with dexmedetomidine 0.4μg/ml at a fixed volume of 10mL was estimated using probit regression. The effective PIEB interval time between boluses of ropivacaine 0.0625% with dexmedetomidine 0.4μg/ml at a fixed volume of 10mL in 90% of subjects without the use of PCEA was 45.4 (35.5-50.5) minutes using probit regression. No statistical differences were found in the proportion of subjects with Bromage score > 0, hypotension, pruritus, nausea, and vomiting between groups. However, the highest sensory block (pinprick) in the 40-min group was significantly higher than that in the other groups. The estimated value for EI90 for PIEB between boluses of ropivacaine 0.0625% with dexmedetomidine 0.4μg/ml at a fixed volume of 10mL using probit regression was 45.4 (35.5-50.5) minutes. Furthermore, future studies are warranted to be established to determine the optimal parameters for different regimens in clinical practice.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of three different concentrations of ropivacaine for labor pain management using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA): A double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background and Aims: Labor pain is consistently ranked high on the various pain rating scales, when compared to other painful life experiences, and the experience of labor during the process of childbirth is both complex and subjective. Though patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using dilute concentrations of local anesthetics (LAs) has been a popular method to control labor pain, yet the optimal dose and regimen for PCEA remain ambiguous. So, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of three different concentrations of ropivacaine for labor analgesia using PCEA. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five healthy nulliparous women who gave voluntary consent for labor analgesia using PCEA were randomly assigned to three groups to receive three different ropivacaine concentrations (0.0625%, 0.1%, and 0.125%) with adjuvant fentanyl 2 μg/ml, after double-blinding. Analgesic efficacy, neuraxial blockade, vital parameters, neonatal outcomes, maternal satisfaction, and side effects were assessed. Primary outcome was total dose of ropivacaine consumed in milligrams. Results: Number of pain breakthroughs (Visual Analog Score >4) and PCEA demand and rescue boluses were found to be statistically more in group 0.0625% (P < 0.01), followed by group 0.1% and were the least in 0.125%. Still, total drug consumed in milligrams was significantly less in 0.0625% group. Maternal satisfaction was comparable among the three groups (P = 0.33). There was no significant difference in maternal side effects and neonatal APGAR scores among the three groups. Conclusion: When three different concentrations of ropivacaine, that is, 0.0625%, 0.1%, and 0.125%, are used for labor analgesia, the use of 0.125% ropivacaine leads to higher total amount of ropivacaine consumed. Despite the lower efficacy in terms of breakthrough pain episodes observed with a 0.0625% ropivacaine concentration for labor analgesia, maternal satisfaction remained consistent across all three doses of ropivacaine. PCEA demand and rescue boluses for the lowest concentration, that is, 0.0625%; and did not affect maternal satisfaction with the management of labor pain.

Factors associated with an inadvertent dural puncture or post-dural puncture headache following labour epidural analgesia: A retrospective cohort study

Inadvertent dural puncture and post-dural puncture headache are complications of labour epidural analgesia and may result in acute and chronic morbidity. Identification of risk factors may enable pre-emptive management and reduce associated morbidity. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to identify factors associated with an inadvertent dural puncture or post-dural puncture headache by identifying parturients who received labour epidural analgesia from January 2017 to December 2021. The primary outcome was any witnessed inadvertent dural puncture, inadvertent placement of an intrathecal catheter, clinical diagnosis of post-dural puncture headache, or headache that was assessed to have characteristic post-dural puncture headache features. A wide range of demographic, obstetric, and anaesthetic factors were analysed using univariate and multivariable analyses to identify independent associations with the primary outcome.Data from 26,395 parturients were analysed, of whom 94 (0.36%) had the primary outcome. Within these 94 parturients, 26 (27.7%) had inadvertent dural puncture, 30 (31.9%) had inadvertent intrathecal catheter, and 38 (40.4%) had post-dural puncture headache without documented inadvertent dural puncture or intrathecal catheter insertion. Increased number of procedure attempts (adjusted odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.63), longer procedure duration adjusted odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.05), increased depth of epidural space (adjusted odds ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.18), greater post-procedure Bromage score (adjusted odds ratio 7.70, 95% confidence interval 4.22 to 14.05), and breakthrough pain (adjusted odds ratio 3.97, 95% confidence interval 2.59 to 6.08) were independently associated with increased odds of the primary outcome, while the use of standard patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) regimen (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95%confidence interval 0.31 to 0.81), increased concentration of ropivacaine (adjusted odds ratio 0.08 per 0.1%, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.46), and greater satisfaction score (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.97) were associated with reduced odds. The area under curve of this multivariable model was 0.83.We identified independent association factors suggesting that greater epidural depth and procedure difficulty may increase the odds of inadvertent dural puncture or post-dural puncture headache.

Epidural versus intravenous analgesia for pain control in kidney donors, a retrospective cohort study. Is there a kinship relationship?

Aims: Best care must be provided for live kidney donors, including postoperative pain control. Treatment options include iv intermittent analgesics, iv or epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In this study we aimed to compare these modalities with respect to their analgesic efficacy. Methods: A retrospective analysis of fifty-eight live donor nephrectomy patients operated in a 7-year-period in a university hospital performed. Investigational Review Board approval has been obtained. Data of the patients’ postoperative analgesia methods, degree of kinship with the recipient, postoperative pain scores, and rescue analgesic and antiemetic use were obtained. Correlation of postoperative pain scores with the analgesia technique was investigated, as well as with the degree of kinship of the donor and recipient. Results: Patient-controlled analgesia provided better postoperative pain control, with the epidural PCA being the best. Moderate to severe pain at 6th postoperative hour in the iv intermittent, iv PCA, and epidural PCA groups was 76, 37, and 14%, respectively. Rescue analgesic use on the day of operation was 32% and 5% in the iv intermittent and iv PCA groups respectively, with no rescue analgesic use in the epidural PCA group. Postoperative antiemetic consumption was also less with the epidural PCA (P=0.024 and P=0.027 for postoperative days 1 and 2, respectively). No correlation was detected between the pain and the degree of kinship. Conclusion: Epidural patient-controlled analgesia provides better postoperative pain control after live donor nephrectomy, compared with intravenous intermittent or patient-controlled analgesia. Postoperative pain scores were not related to the degree of kinship.

Differential sensory block during labour epidural analgesia: a prospective observational study to investigate the relationship of lower and upper sensory block levels to cold, pinprick, and light touch.

A zone of differential block to cold has been recently documented during labour epidural analgesia, with an upper sensory block level (USBL) and a lower sensory block level (LSBL). We aimed to determine the correlation between USBL and LSBL to cold and pinprick and sensory block level to light touch during labour epidural analgesia. We conducted a prospective observational study in patients requesting labour epidural analgesia. We placed an epidural catheter at L2/L3 or L3/L4, followed by a programmed intermittent epidural bolus plus patient-controlled epidural analgesia regimen. We assessed the sensory block levels 140min after administering the loading dose. The primary outcomes were the USBL and LSBL to cold and pinprick and the sensory block level to light touch. We studied 30 patients. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] USBL and LSBL to ice were T7 [T7-T6] and T9 [T10-T8], respectively. The median [IQR] USBL and LSBL to pinprick were T8 [T10-T6] and T10 [T12-T10], respectively. There was a strong correlation between USBL to ice and pinprick (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.57) and between LSBL to ice and pinprick (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.52). There was no significant correlation between sensory block level to light touch and either USBL or LSBL to ice or pinprick. We observed two sensory block levels to ice and pinprick. Further studies are required to understand if one modality-cold or pinprick-is superior to the other in assessing sensory block levels in this context. Light touch is unreliable as a modality of sensory block assessment during labour epidural analgesia. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05187962); registered 12 January 2022.

Efficacy and safety of patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia following open hepatectomy: A single-center retrospective study

BackgroundPostoperative analgesia is an essential component of enhanced recovery after surgery following abdominal surgery. Studies comparing the effectiveness of epidural analgesia with that of other analgesic modalities after liver surgery have reported inconsistent results. Consequently, the use of epidural analgesia for open hepatectomy is controversial. ObjectiveThe present single-center retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in adults undergoing open hepatectomy. MethodsPatients who underwent open hepatectomy between January 2018 to December 2019 at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to adjust baseline information between the PCEA and PCIA groups. The primary outcome measure was scores of the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for resting, exercise, and nocturnal pain at postoperative 24 h (postoperative day 1 [POD1]) and 48 h (POD2). The secondary outcome indicators included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hypotension, pruritus, respiratory depression, functional activity score (FAS), effective analgesic pump compression ratio, analgesic relief rate, discontinuation of the analgesic pump, reasons for discontinuation of the analgesic pump, and patient satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. ResultsThe NRS scores of the PCEA group on POD1 were significantly lower than those of the PCIA group (P < 0.05). On POD2, the difference between the two groups was significant only for motion NRS scores (P < 0.05). The PCIA group had significantly more patients with lower FAS functional class than the PCEA group (P < 0.001). The effective analgesic pump compression ratio and the analgesic relief rate at 2 days after the surgery were lower in the PCEA group than in the PCIA group (P < 0.001). The incidence of pump discontinuation was higher in the PCEA group than in the PCIA group on POD2 (P = 0.044). Moreover, on POD1 and POD2, the PCEA group showed a higher incidence of pruritus and hypotension than the PCIA group (P < 0.001). Both groups showed no significant difference in PONV incidence. ConclusionIn patients undergoing open hepatectomy, PCEA was more effective than PCIA in relieving moderate to severe pain on POD1. However, improving the safety and effectiveness of PCEA remains a challenge.

Whole-course application of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: A randomized, controlled trial

BackgroundDexmedetomidine is known to prolong the analgesic duration of spinal anesthesia, but it can be challenging to achieve further extension without opioids. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate a novel analgesic strategy using dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to spinal-epidural anesthesia for elective cesarean surgery. MethodsThe study was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial conducted at a single center. Sixty parturients who underwent elective cesarean were randomly assigned to either group C or group D. Group D received an intrathecal injection of 12.5 mg ropivacaine and 5 μg dexmedetomidine followed by continuous epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) infusion with a total volume of 100 ml, containing 0.2 % ropivacaine and 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine. Group C received an intrathecal injection of 12.5 mg ropivacaine with an equivalent saline placebo followed by a similar PCA infusion, containing 0.2 % ropivacaine and an equivalent saline placebo. ResultsThe primary outcome was visual analog scale score on movement at 24 h after surgery. The results showed that the rest and motion pain scores in group D were significantly lower than those in group C at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after surgery (P < 0.05), with the differences at 24 h were 5.0 (5.0, 5.0)in group D versus 5.0 (5.0, 6.0) in group C (P = 0.04). Additionally, the time to the first PCA in group D was significantly longer than that in group C (P < 0.05), as well as the time of sensory and motor recovery. ConclusionsWhole-course application of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to spinal-epidural anesthesia could effectively extend the analgesic duration of ropivacaine to 24 h following elective cesarean surgery.

A Retrospective Comparison of Clinical Efficacy between Multimodal Analgesia and Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background and Objectives: Adequate pain management during early rehabilitation is mandatory for improving the outcomes of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Conventional pain management, mainly comprising opioids and epidural analgesia, may result in certain adverse effects such as dizziness, nausea, and motor blockade. We proposed a multimodal analgesic (MA) strategy involving the use of peripheral nerve block (NB), periarticular injection (PAI), and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA). This study compared the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of the proposed MA strategy and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Materials and Methods: We enrolled 118 patients who underwent TKA under spinal anesthesia. The patients followed either the MA protocol or received PCEA after surgery. The analgesic effect was examined using a numerical rating scale (NRS). The adverse effects experienced by the patients were recorded. Results: A lower proportion of patients in the MA group experienced motor blockade (6.45% vs. 22.98%) compared to those in the PCEA group on the first postoperative day. Furthermore, a lower proportion of patients in the MA group experienced numbness (18.52% vs. 43.33%) than those in the PCEA group on the first postoperative day. Conclusions: The MA strategy can be recommended for reducing the occurrence of motor blockade and numbness in patients following TKA. Therefore, the MA strategy ensures early rehabilitation while maintaining adequate pain relief.

Comparison of Different Delivery Modalities of Epidural Analgesia and Intravenous Analgesia in Labor: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

(Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth. 2023;70:406–442) There is still no preferred method of delivering neuraxial analgesia to pregnant patients. There are options such as continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and intermittent epidural bolus which can be controlled by a machine (programmed intermittent epidural bolus—PIEB), demand from an anesthesia provider (demand intermittent epidural bolus—DIEB), or the patient themselves (patient-controlled epidural analgesia—PCEA). The use of opioids for labor analgesia is also common in those who cannot receive spinal analgesia. This study aimed to compare the relationship between different analgesia delivery methods on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes.

Opioid-free anesthesia reduces the severity of acute postoperative motion-induced pain and patient-controlled epidural analgesia-related adverse events in lung surgery: randomized clinical trial.

Opioids have been used as pain relievers for thousands of years. However, they may also cause undesirable side effects. We therefore performed this study to compare the effect of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) versus opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) on postoperative pain and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA)-related events. This is a single center randomized clinical trial that was recruited patients aged from 18 to 70 years who received video-assisted lung surgery between October 2021 and February 2022. Participants were 1:1 randomly assigned to OFA or OSA. Patients in the OFA group received propofol, rocuronium, esmolol, lidocaine, and magnesium sulfate intravenously with epidural ropivacaine. Patients in the OSA group received propofol, rocuronium, remifentanil, and sufentanil intravenously with epidural hydromorphone and ropivacaine. A total number of 124 patients were randomly allocated to the OFA or OSA group. In the OFA group, the severity of pain during coughs on the first postoperative days (PODs; VAS score 1.88 ± 0.88 vs. 2.16 ± 1.1, p = 0.044) was significantly lower than that in the OSA group. The total ratio of PCEA-related adverse events in the OFA group [11 (19.6%) vs. 26 (47.3%), p = 0.003] was significantly lower than in the OSA group. OFA in patients who received video-assisted lung surgery led to lower severity of acute postoperative motion-induced pain and fewer PCEA-related adverse events on the first POD than in the patients in the OSA group. clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT05063396).

Comparison of the Postoperative Analgesia Effects of Patient-Controlled Analgesia and Epidural Catheter After Posterior Instrumentation Surgery

Objective: To prospectively assess the effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) and epidural patient-controlled analgesia (epidural PCA) on postoperative pain management following posterior instrumentation surgery.&#x0D; Materials and Methods: The study involved the ASA 1-2 group, 60 patients who underwent elective thoracic or lumbar posterior instrumentation surgery at our tertiary centre for spinal stenosis. Two groups of patients were created: Group 1 (n = 30), IV PCA group, and Group 2 (n=30), epidural PCA group. IV PCA was applied by fentanyl. Epidural PCA was maintained by lading to epidural space by the neurosurgeon. Bupivacaine was administered to Group 2 patients in the recovery room. Following surgery, patients in both groups were assessed for pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and for motor block using the Bromage scale. Additionally, hemodynamic parameters, side effects, and patient satisfaction were noted. Following 48 hours, patients' overall rescue analgesia, opioid, and local anaesthetic requirements were recorded. &#x0D; Results: Postoperative VAS scores of Group 2 at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th and 16th hours were lower than Group 1 and these differences was statistically significant. Postoperative patient satisfaction scores at 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th, 24th, 30th, 36th, 42nd and 48th hours were significantly different between the groups and the patient satisfaction scores of Group 2 were higher than the Group 1. Side effects were similar in both groups. Group 1 required statistically significantly higher number of rescue analgesia. &#x0D; Conclusion: This study shows that epidural PCA is more comfortable than IV PCA with low VAS and high patient satisfaction scores. As a conclusion, epidural PCA is a safe, highly efficient method for patients with posterior instrumentation surgery.

Comparison Between Two Methods of Patient-Controlled Analgesia Through Intravenous and Thoracic Epidural to Control Pain and Complications After Surgery in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to compare the post-operation analgesic effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients who were undergoing esophageal cancer surgery. This was a randomized clinical trial. 80 patients undergone esophagostomy were randomly divided into two groups: 40 patients in the epidural PCA and 40 patients in the intravenous PCA group were evaluated. Post-operation pain score was assessed using the universal pain assessment tool (UPAT) in both groups at 24 and 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included AKI, MI, CVA, pulmonary complications, ICU stay and three months survival. Mean pain scores were similar in the two groups (P&gt;0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups for rescue treatment, three months’ survival, CVA, MI and AKI. However, ICU stay (P=0.008) and pulmonary complications (P=0.05) were greater in PCIA group. The results indicate that none of the PCEA and PCIA methods have any superiority in terms of pain control and the incidence of analgesic-related side effect complications after surgery in patients undergoing esophagostomy and confirm sufficient analgesia by both.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus in maintenance of epidural labor analgesia: a literature review.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), administered by the infusion pump programmed to deliver boluses of epidural solution at certain intervals, is gradually gaining more attention as a technique to maintain the labor analgesia in recent years. Many studies find that it may have some advantages when compared with other methods. However, its exact effectiveness and optimal regimen are still unclear. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published between January 2010 and June 2022. Of the 263 publications identified, 27 studies were included. The purpose of this review is to discuss the effects of PIEB with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in maintenance of epidural labor analgesia on labor outcomes and elucidate the latest research progress of implementation strategies.

Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia vs Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia in early recovery and pain control in gynecologic cancer

Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia vs Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia in early recovery and pain control in gynecologic cancer