Effect of continuous wound infiltration on patients using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pain management after reduced-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-22 DOI:10.3393/ac.2023.00143.0020
Hyeon Deok Choi, Sung Uk Bae
{"title":"Effect of continuous wound infiltration on patients using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pain management after reduced-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery.","authors":"Hyeon Deok Choi, Sung Uk Bae","doi":"10.3393/ac.2023.00143.0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Continuous wound infiltration (CWI) has been introduced as a component of multimodal analgesia to counteract the adverse effects of the most frequently used opioids. Advantages of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) include cosmetic benefits and decreased postoperative pain. We aimed to investigate the effect of CWI in patients using intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for pain management after RPLS for colorectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 25 patients who received both CWI (0.5% ropivacaine infused over 72 hours) and IV PCA (fentanyl citrate) and 52 patients who received IV PCA alone. The primary endpoint was pain scores on postoperative days (PODs) 0, 1, and 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors affecting the pain score on POD 0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On POD 0, the mean numeric rating scale score was significantly lower in the CWI group than in the control group (3.2±0.8 vs. 3.7±0.9, P=0.042). However, the scores were comparable between the groups during the rest of the period. Within 24 hours of surgery, the CWI group consumed fewer opioids (0.7±0.9 vs. 1.3±1.1, P=0.018) and more nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (2.0±1.4 vs. 1.3±1.4, P=0.046) than the control group. Time to removal of IV PCA was significantly longer in the CWI group than in the control group (4.4±1.6 days vs. 3.4±1.0 days, P=0.016).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CWI with ropivacaine and IV PCA was more effective than IV PCA alone in controlling postoperative pain within 24 hours of surgery, and opioid use could be reduced further.</p>","PeriodicalId":8267,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Coloproctology","volume":" ","pages":"564-572"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2023.00143.0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Continuous wound infiltration (CWI) has been introduced as a component of multimodal analgesia to counteract the adverse effects of the most frequently used opioids. Advantages of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) include cosmetic benefits and decreased postoperative pain. We aimed to investigate the effect of CWI in patients using intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for pain management after RPLS for colorectal cancer.

Methods: This retrospective study included 25 patients who received both CWI (0.5% ropivacaine infused over 72 hours) and IV PCA (fentanyl citrate) and 52 patients who received IV PCA alone. The primary endpoint was pain scores on postoperative days (PODs) 0, 1, and 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors affecting the pain score on POD 0.

Results: On POD 0, the mean numeric rating scale score was significantly lower in the CWI group than in the control group (3.2±0.8 vs. 3.7±0.9, P=0.042). However, the scores were comparable between the groups during the rest of the period. Within 24 hours of surgery, the CWI group consumed fewer opioids (0.7±0.9 vs. 1.3±1.1, P=0.018) and more nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (2.0±1.4 vs. 1.3±1.4, P=0.046) than the control group. Time to removal of IV PCA was significantly longer in the CWI group than in the control group (4.4±1.6 days vs. 3.4±1.0 days, P=0.016).

Conclusion: CWI with ropivacaine and IV PCA was more effective than IV PCA alone in controlling postoperative pain within 24 hours of surgery, and opioid use could be reduced further.

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
持续伤口浸润对使用静脉注射患者自控镇痛剂进行缩孔腹腔镜结直肠手术后疼痛控制的患者的影响。
目的:伤口连续浸润(CWI)已作为多模式镇痛的一个组成部分被引入,以抵消最常用阿片类药物的不良反应。缩孔腹腔镜手术(RPLS)的优点包括美观和减少术后疼痛。我们旨在研究 CWI 对使用静脉注射(IV)患者自控镇痛(PCA)治疗结直肠癌 RPLS 术后疼痛的患者的影响:这项回顾性研究包括 25 名同时接受 CWI(0.5% 罗哌卡因输注 72 小时)和静脉 PCA(枸橼酸芬太尼)治疗的患者,以及 52 名仅接受静脉 PCA 治疗的患者。主要终点是术后第 0、1 和 2 天 (POD) 的疼痛评分。为确定影响 POD 0 疼痛评分的因素,进行了单变量和多变量分析:在 POD 0,CWI 组的平均数字评分量表得分明显低于对照组(3.2±0.8 vs. 3.7±0.9,P=0.042)。不过,在其余时间里,两组的得分不相上下。与对照组相比,CWI 组在手术后 24 小时内使用的阿片类药物(0.7±0.9 vs. 1.3±1.1,P=0.018)和非甾体抗炎药物(2.0±1.4 vs. 1.3±1.4,P=0.046)更少。CWI组拔除静脉PCA的时间明显长于对照组(4.4±1.6天 vs. 3.4±1.0天,P=0.016):结论:使用罗哌卡因和静脉 PCA 的 CWI 比单独使用静脉 PCA 更能有效控制术后 24 小时内的疼痛,并能进一步减少阿片类药物的使用。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Antibiotic use during the first episode of acute perianal sepsis: a still-open question. Technical approach in the management of perianal fistula: combining ovine extracellular matrix with endoanal ultrasound to review the surgical outcome. Comparison of colorectal cancer surgery patients in intensive care between rural and metropolitan hospitals in Australia: a national cohort study. Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) for high transsphincteric fistulas: a double-center retrospective study with long-term follow-up. Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications.
×
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