RESUMEN

Controlling postoperative pain is essential for the greatest recovery following major abdominal surgery. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has traditionally been considered the preferred method of providing pain relief after major abdominal surgeries. Thoracic epidural analgesia has a wide range of complications, including residual motor blockade, hypotension, urine retention with the need for urinary catheterisation, tethering to infusion pumps, and occasional failure rates. In recent years, rectus sheath catheter (RSC) analgesia has been gaining popularity. The purpose of this review is to compare the effectiveness of TEA and RSC in reducing pain following major abdominal surgeries. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score were included according to the set criteria. A total of 351 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were included in this meta-analysis. There were 176 patients in the TEA group and 175 patients in the RSC group. In the random effect model analysis, there was no significant difference in VAS pain score in 24 hours at rest (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.46; 95% CI -1.21 to 0.29; z=1.20, P=0.23) and movement (SMD -0.64; 95% CI -1.69 to -0.14; z=1.19, P=0.23) between TEA and RSC. Similarly, there was no significant difference in pain score after 48 hours at rest (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; z=1.29, P=0.20) or movement (SMD -0.69; 95% CI -2.03 to 0.64; z=1.02, P=0.31). In conclusion, our findings show that there was no significant difference in pain score between TEA and RSC following major abdominal surgery, and we suggest that both approaches can be used effectively according to the choice and expertise available.

RESUMEN

Adequate postoperative analgesia is a key element of enhanced recovery programmes. Thoracic epidural analgesia is associated with superior postoperative analgesia but can lead to complications. Rectus sheath catheter analgesia may provide an alternative. In a nested qualitative study (within a two-year randomised controlled trial) focussing on the acceptability, expectations and experiences of receiving the interventions, participants (n = 20) were interviewed 4 weeks post-intervention using a grounded theory approach. Constant comparative analysis, with patient and public involvement, enabled emerging findings to be pursued through subsequent data collection. We found no notable differences regarding postoperative acceptability or the experience of pain management. Pre-operatively, however, thoracic epidural analgesia was a source of anticipatory fear and anxiety. Both interventions resulted in some experienced adverse events (proportionately more with thoracic epidural analgesia). Participants had negative experiences of the insertion of thoracic epidural analgesia; others receiving the rectus sheath catheter lacked confidence in staff members' ability to manage the local anaesthetic infusion pump. The anticipation of the technique of thoracic epidural analgesia, and concerns about its impact on mobility, represented an additional, unpleasant experience for patients already managing an illness experience, anticipating a life-changing operation and dealing with concerns about the future. The anticipation of rectus sheath catheter analgesia was not associated with such anxieties. Patients' experiences start far earlier than the experience of the intervention itself through anticipatory anxieties and fears about receiving a technique and its potential implications. Complex pain packages can take on greater meaning than their actual efficacy in relieving postoperative pain. Future research into patient acceptability and experience should not focus solely on efficacy of pain relief but should include anticipatory fears, anxieties and experiences.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether rectus sheath catheter (RSC) insertion may be an alternative to thoracic epidural (TE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a non-blinded, single-centre, non-inferiority study, patients undergoing open radical cystectomy were randomized 1:1 to receive either a TE or surgically placed RSC. The primary endpoint was cumulative opiate use (median oral morphine equivalent [OME]) in the first 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores, measures of postoperative recovery including mobility and time to regular diet, and complications. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were randomized (51 TE, 46 RSC). The median OME was 103 (77.5-132.5) mg in the TE arm and 161.75 (117.5-187.5) mg in the RSC arm. A Mann-Whitney U-test confirmed non-inferiority of RSC to TE at a threshold of 15 mg OME (P = 0.002). When comparing pain scores for the first three postoperative days, an early difference was observed that favoured the TE group during post-anaesthesia care unit stay, which was lost after postoperative day 1. Patient satisfaction with analgesia on the third postoperative day was similar in the two arms (P = 0.47). There were no statistically significant differences between arms with respect to the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes from this prospective randomized trial demonstrated non-inferiority of RSC insertion compared to TE with respect to 72-h opiate use. Patient satisfaction with pain control on postoperative day 3 was the same for each group.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Rectus sheath catheters are used as an analgesic alternative to thoracic epidural. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the analgesic effects and side effects of thoracic epidural and rectus sheath catheter in the setting of emergency or elective laparotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the Cochrane library, Embase, PubMed and Medline was conducted. Papers that directly compared thoracic epidurals and rectus sheath catheters following laparotomy were identified. Literature published between 2001 and 2021 were included. Data were extracted on the following postoperative outcomes: additional analgesic requirements, pain scores, hypotension and ambulation. A random effects meta-analysis model was used to compare additional opioid requirements between thoracic epidural and rectus sheath catheter. RESULTS: Eight publications were included from five countries. This comprised 484 patients, with 120 patients being extracted from randomised trials. Thoracic epidural reduced the requirement for additional intravenous analgesia compared with rectus sheath catheters (p = 0.004). Despite this, both analgesic techniques were equivalent with regard to reported pain scores. Furthermore, rectus sheath catheters have a lower rate of postoperative hypotension and allow for earlier ambulation compared with thoracic epidural. CONCLUSIONS: The literature suggests that rectus sheath catheters provide similar analgesic effect to thoracic epidurals, but rectus sheath catheters have a favourable side effect profile.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Development of chronic postsurgical pain following major abdominal or pelvic surgeries is increasingly recognized. Multimodal analgesia including regional anesthesia such as rectus sheath block is growing in popularity. While the literature mainly describes ultrasound-guided rectus sheath blocks, there are many advantages to surgically-initiated rectus sheath catheter performed at the end of surgery. In this technical description, we describe the rationale and technique of surgical insertion of rectus sheath catheters following major urologic surgery with midline incision which is routinely performed by urologists at our institution. Furthermore, we would like to highlight the type of catheter used during rectus sheath catheter insertion, namely the catheter-over-needle assembly. It is simple to insert while minimizes complications such as local anesthetic leakage at the insertion site causing dressing disruption and premature catheter dislodgement, as the catheter-over-needle assembly fits snugly with the skin after insertion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction Surgically inserted rectus sheath catheters (RSCs) are used increasingly for analgesia after cystectomy and other abdominal surgery. Currently, there is little information on the optimal positioning of RSCs to allow maximal spread of local anaesthetic. This study sought to assess the spread of dye injected via RSCs and to highlight the extent of its coverage in a fresh unembalmed cadaveric cystectomy model in order to confirm the nerve endings that are likely to be anaesthetised with RSCs. Methods Four cadavers underwent lower midline incision with limited bladder mobilisation. A RSC was inserted into the eight hemiabdomens. The RSCs were positioned either anterior (n=5) or posterior to the rectus muscle (n=3). Dye was injected down the RSCs to evaluate spread. The eight hemiabdomens were dissected anatomically to determine the surface area of dye spread and nerve root involvement. Results The mean surface area of dye spread with anteriorly placed RSCs was 30.6cm2 anterior and 25.9cm2 posterior to the rectus muscle. The mean surface area of dye spread with posteriorly placed RSCs was 11.3cm2 anterior and 37.3cm2 posterior to the rectus muscle. The mean number of nerve roots stained with anteriorly and posteriorly placed RSCs was 3.8 and 2.7 respectively. Subcutaneous spread of dye was seen with one anterior RSC insertion. Peritoneal spread was seen with one anteriorly positioned RSC. Conclusions This study has demonstrated efficient nerve root infiltration with anteriorly and posteriorly positioned RSCs. It appears that dye spreads between the fibres of the rectus muscle rather than out laterally to the nerve roots when spreading from its initial compartment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction Rectus sheath catheters (RSCs) are increasingly being used to provide postoperative analgesia following laparotomy for colorectal surgery. Little is known about their efficacy in comparison with epidural infusion analgesia (EIA). They are potentially better as they avoid the recognised complications associated with EIA. This study compares these two methods of analgesia. Outcomes include average pain scores, time to mobilisation and length of stay. Methods This was a 33-month single centre observational study including all patients undergoing elective open or laparoscopic-converted-to-open colorectal resection for both benign and malignant disease. Patients received either EIA or RSCs. Data were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively. Results A total of 95 patients were identified. Indications for surgery, operation and complications were recorded. The mean time to mobilisation was significantly shorter in patients who had RSCs compared with EIA patients (2.4 vs 3.5 days, p<0.05). There was no difference in postoperative pain scores or length of stay. Conclusions RSCs provide equivalent analgesia to EIA and avoid the recognised potential complications of EIA. They are associated with a shorter time to mobilisation. Their use should be adopted more widely.

Asunto(s)