de Leon-Casasola O A, Parker B M, Lema M J, Groth R I, Orsini-Fuentes J
Acute Pain Service, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Reg Anesth. 1994 Sep-Oct;19(5):307-15.
This study evaluated 462 consecutive surgical cancer patients who underwent uncomplicated surgeries of the thorax or abdomen, or both, of more than 3 hours duration between 1989 and 1991.
Patients received either epidural analgesia (EA group) with 0.1% bupivacaine, 0.01% morphine sulfate after combined general-epidural anesthesia, or parenteral morphine therapy via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after balanced general anesthesia after the operation. Patients in both the EA (n = 352) and IV-PCA (n = 100) groups were compared for demographics, length of surgical intensive care unit (SICU), and hospital stays. Moreover, the same comparisons were performed when patients were allocated into surgical subgroups: thoracic (TH), upper abdominal (UA), lower abdominal (LA), radical hysterectomies (RH), and RH with colon resection (RHCR).
No differences existed with respect to age or sex between the EA and IV-PCA groups. All patients reported adequate dynamic pain control as evaluated with visual analog pain scores (VAS < 4/10), during the treatment periods (5 +/- 3 versus 5 +/- 2 days, EA versus IV-PCA). Overall, 262 (58%) patients were admitted to the SICU after the operation, 205 (58%) from the EA group and 57 (57%) from the IV-PCA group. Patients in the EA group required less ventilatory support than did those in the IV-PCA group (0.5 +/- 0.8 versus 1.2 +/- 0.9 days, P < .05). Patients in the EA group also spent less time in both the SICU (1.3 +/- 0.8 versus 2.8 +/- 0.6 days, P < .05) and in the hospital (11 +/- 3 versus 17 +/- 5 days, P < .05) than did their counterparts in the IV-PCA group. Significant differences were also found when subgroup comparisons were made.
The use of both analgesic techniques was associated with satisfactory postoperative pain control. However, patients receiving epidural anesthesia and analgesia experienced faster recovery as judged by shorter mechanical ventilation time, and decreased SICU and hospital stays, resulting in significantly lower hospitalization costs. The use of perioperative epidural techniques should be considered to expedite recovery of surgical patients, and has the added benefit of being cost effective by reducing hospital stays.
本研究评估了1989年至1991年间连续462例接受胸部或腹部或两者联合的持续时间超过3小时的无并发症手术的癌症患者。
患者在全身 - 硬膜外联合麻醉后接受0.1%布比卡因、0.01%硫酸吗啡的硬膜外镇痛(EA组),或术后在平衡全身麻醉后通过静脉自控镇痛(IV - PCA)进行胃肠外吗啡治疗。比较EA组(n = 352)和IV - PCA组(n = 100)患者的人口统计学特征、外科重症监护病房(SICU)住院时间和住院时间。此外,当患者被分配到手术亚组时进行相同的比较:胸部(TH)、上腹部(UA)、下腹部(LA)、根治性子宫切除术(RH)以及伴有结肠切除术的根治性子宫切除术(RHCR)。
EA组和IV - PCA组在年龄或性别方面无差异。所有患者在治疗期间(EA组与IV - PCA组分别为5±3天和5±2天)通过视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS < 4/10)评估均报告动态疼痛控制良好。总体而言,262例(58%)患者术后入住SICU,其中EA组205例(58%),IV - PCA组57例(57%)。EA组患者所需通气支持少于IV - PCA组(0.5±0.8天对1.2±0.9天,P <.05)。EA组患者在SICU(1.3±0.8天对2.8±0.6天,P <.05)和医院(11±3天对17±5天,P <.05)的停留时间也少于IV - PCA组的患者。在亚组比较时也发现了显著差异。
两种镇痛技术的使用均与术后疼痛控制良好相关。然而,通过较短的机械通气时间、减少的SICU住院时间和住院时间判断,接受硬膜外麻醉和镇痛的患者恢复更快,从而使住院费用显著降低。应考虑使用围手术期硬膜外技术以加速手术患者的恢复,并具有通过减少住院时间而具有成本效益的额外益处。