A Randomized-Controlled Study of Intrathecal Versus Epidural Thoracic Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Cancer Surgery
We sought to determine the effectiveness of continuous intrathecal thoracic analgesia (ITA) in comparison with continuous epidural thoracic analgesia (ETA) for the management of postoperative pain after abdominal cancer surgery in a randomised controlled study.
Materials and methods
Catheters were inserted at T8-10 level for both techniques. Sixty patients were randomized to receive ITA providing levobupivacaine 0.25%, at 0.5–0–7 ml/h, associated with a single bolus of morphine 0.15 mg, or ETA with levobupivacaine 0.25% 4–6 ml/h and a single bolus of epidural morphine 2–3 mg. Data were collected before discharging from recovery room to the surgical ward, 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 24 h, and 48 h after operation. The primary outcome was pain intensity evaluation. Postoperative morphine consumption, hemodynamics, fluids, and blood losses for the first postoperative 48 h, surgical outcome, hospital stay, and complications were also collected.
Pain intensity at rest mean values ranged from 1.12 to 1.44 and from 1.04 to 1.20 in ITA group and ETA group, respectively. Dynamic pain intensity mean values ranged from 1.28 to 1.70 and from 1.16 to 1.80 in ITA group and ETA group, respectively. No significant differences were found between the two groups. Total amount morphine consumption was minimal in both groups, 4.4 mg (±2.9) and 3.1 mg (±2.4), for ITA and ETA groups, respectively. There were no severly sedated patients. Hemodynamic variables, diuresis, amounts of fluids, and red cell transfusion were equivalent between the groups. No important technical complications were reported in both groups and postoperative surgical complications were not related to the examined techniques.
ITA and ETA produced the same levels of analgesia, without relevant complications.
Keywordsepidural analgesia intrathecal analgesia postoperative pain
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Authors wish to thank the nurse staff of operatory room and surgical ward for their valuable support.
- 4.Bakhtiary F, Therapidis P, Dzemali O, Ak K, Ackermann H, Meininger D, Kessler P, Kleine P, Moritz A, Aybek T, Dogan S. Impact of high thoracic epidural anesthesia on incidence of perioperative atrial fibrillation in off-pump coronary bypass grafting: a prospective randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 134:460–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kessler P, Aybek T, Neidhart G, Dogan S, Lischke V, Bremerich DH, Byhahn C. Comparison of three anesthetic techniques for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: general anesthesia, combined general and high thoracic epidural anesthesia, or high thoracic epidural anesthesia alone. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2005;19:32–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Zutshi M, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Mekhail N, Lewis B, Connor JT, Fazio VW. Randomized controlled trial comparing the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet pathway versus the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet with preemptive epidural anesthesia/analgesia after laparotomy and intestinal resection. Am J Surg. 2005;189:268–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hansdottir V, Philip J, Olsen MF, Eduard C, Houltz E, Ricksten SE. Thoracic epidural versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial on length of hospital stay and patient-perceived quality of recovery. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:142–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar