17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Role of Epidural Analgesia within an ERAS Program after Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Studies

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction. Epidural analgesia has been a cornerstone of any ERAS program for open colorectal surgery. With the improvements in anesthetic and analgesic techniques as well as the introduction of the laparoscopy for colorectal resection, the role of epidural analgesia has been questioned. The aim of the review was to assess through a meta-analysis the impact of epidural analgesia compared to other analgesic techniques for colorectal laparoscopic surgery within an ERAS program. Methods. Literature research was performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All randomised clinical trials that reported data on hospital stay, postoperative complications, and readmissions rates within an ERAS program with and without an epidural analgesia after a colorectal laparoscopic resection were included. Results. Five randomised clinical trials were selected and a total of 168 patients submitted to epidural analgesia were compared to 163 patients treated by an alternative analgesic technique. Pooled data show a longer hospital stay in the epidural group with a mean difference of 1.07 (95% CI 0.06–2.08) without any significant differences in postoperative complications and readmissions rates. Conclusion. Epidural analgesia does not seem to offer any additional clinical benefits to patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an ERAS program.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Failed epidural: causes and management.

          Failed epidural anaesthesia or analgesia is more frequent than generally recognized. We review the factors known to influence the success rate of epidural anaesthesia. Reasons for an inadequate epidural block include incorrect primary placement, secondary migration of a catheter after correct placement, and suboptimal dosing of local anaesthetic drugs. For catheter placement, the loss of resistance using saline has become the most widely used method. Patient positioning, the use of a midline or paramedian approach, and the method used for catheter fixation can all influence the success rate. When using equipotent doses, the difference in clinical effect between bupivacaine and the newer isoforms levobupivacaine and ropivacaine appears minimal. With continuous infusion, dose is the primary determinant of epidural anaesthesia quality, with volume and concentration playing a lesser role. Addition of adjuvants, especially opioids and epinephrine, may substantially increase the success rate of epidural analgesia. Adjuvant opioids may have a spinal or supraspinal action. The use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with background infusion appears to be the best method for postoperative analgesia.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Randomized clinical trial of epidural, spinal or patient-controlled analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

            Epidural analgesia is considered fundamental in enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs). However, its value in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of different analgesic regimens on outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery in fluid-optimized patients treated within an ERP. Ninety-nine patients were randomized to receive epidural, spinal or patient-controlled (PCA) analgesia. The primary endpoints were time until medically fit for discharge and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints included return of bowel function, pain scores, and changes in pulmonary function and quality of life. Ninety-one patients completed the study. The median length of hospital stay was 3.7 days following epidural analgesia, significantly longer than that of 2.7 and 2.8 days for spinal analgesia and PCA respectively (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). There was also a slower return of bowel function with epidural analgesia than with spinal analgesia and PCA. Epidural analgesia did not offer better preservation of pulmonary function or quality of life, although pain scores were higher in the PCA group in the early postoperative period. Many of the outcomes in the epidural analgesia group were significantly worse than those in the spinal analgesia and PCA groups, suggesting that either of these two modalities could replace epidural analgesia. Copyright © 2011 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway.

              To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Surg Res Pract
                Surg Res Pract
                SRP
                Surgery Research and Practice
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2356-7759
                2356-6124
                2016
                24 August 2016
                : 2016
                : 7543684
                Affiliations
                1Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37126 Verona, Italy
                2Yeovil District Hospital and University of Bath, District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
                3Clinique Chirurgicale Val d'Or, Paris, France
                4Clinical Research Platform, URC-CRC, Saint Antoine Hospital, APHP, Paris, France
                Author notes
                *Giuseppe Borzellino: gpborz@ 123456gmail.com

                Academic Editor: Christophoros Foroulis

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3378-4548
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0230-3796
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3495-7225
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4984-6758
                Article
                10.1155/2016/7543684
                5013204
                27642630
                6c82e75c-0c1a-4d15-bbc8-5c81eac29251
                Copyright © 2016 Giuseppe Borzellino et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 April 2016
                : 29 June 2016
                Categories
                Review Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article