Comparison of the postoperative analgesia effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and epidural catheter after posterior instrumentation surgery

Muhammet Ahmet KARAKAYA, Hacı Ahmet ALICI
{"title":"Comparison of the postoperative analgesia effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and epidural catheter after posterior instrumentation surgery","authors":"Muhammet Ahmet KARAKAYA, Hacı Ahmet ALICI","doi":"10.56766/ntms.1357854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.
 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. 
 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. 
 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.","PeriodicalId":371755,"journal":{"name":"New Trends in Medicine Sciences","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Trends in Medicine Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56766/ntms.1357854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
术后自控镇痛(PCA)与硬膜外导管镇痛效果比较
目的:前瞻性评价静脉自控镇痛(IV PCA)和硬膜外自控镇痛(epidural PCA)对后路内固定术后疼痛管理的影响。 材料和方法:本研究纳入ASA 1-2组,60例患者在我们的三级中心接受择期胸椎或腰椎后路内固定手术治疗椎管狭窄。将患者分为两组:第1组(n=30)为静脉PCA组,第2组(n=30)为硬膜外PCA组。静脉PCA应用芬太尼。神经外科医生通过将其移至硬膜外间隙来维持硬膜外PCA。第二组患者在康复室给予布比卡因。手术后,两组患者均采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评估疼痛,采用Bromage评分评估运动阻滞。此外,还记录了血流动力学参数、副作用和患者满意度。48小时后,记录患者的整体抢救镇痛、阿片类药物和局部麻醉需求。& # x0D;结果:2组患者术后第1、2、4、8、16 h VAS评分均低于1组,差异有统计学意义。两组患者术后第1、2、4、8、12、16、20、24、30、36、42、48小时满意度评分差异有统计学意义,其中2组患者满意度评分高于1组。两组的副作用相似。第1组需要抢救性镇痛的次数明显高于第1组。& # x0D;结论:硬膜外PCA比静脉PCA更舒适,VAS低,患者满意度高。综上所述,硬膜外PCA对于后路内固定手术患者是一种安全、高效的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Increased Atherogenic Indices and Basal Cell Carcinoma Investigation of the Protective Effects of Capparis Spinosa Extract in Indomethacin Induced Ulcer Model in Rats A Newly Defined Electromagnetic Dural Armor Functioned as a Brain Protecting Cerebrosphere: A Preliminary Theoretical Analysis Postnatal Hospitalization Rates and Short-Term Follow-up Results of Late Preterm, Early Term, and Term Newborns Hippophae Rhamnoides L. Botanical, Medicinal, Traditional, and Current Use of Plant and Fruits: A Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1