[Continuous peridural analgesia vs patient - controlled intravenous analgesia for pain therapy after thoracotomy]. / Kontinuierliche Periduralanalgesie versus patientenkontrollierte intravenöse Analgesie.Schmerztherapie nach Thorakotomien.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Continuous epidural analgesia (EA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) are widely used for postoperative pain control. Studies indicate that both analgesic regimens provide good analgesia after major surgery. However, because of the following reasons it is still unclear whether one of the two modes of application is superior. First, there are conflicting data regarding the differences in pain relief and drug use between epidural and intravenous administration of opioids. Second, in many studies epidural analgesia is performed by a combination of local anaesthetics and opioids. Third, reduced morbidity was observed only in some of the studies, in which epidural analgesia provided better pain relief than systemic opioid supply. Despite these conflicting results, EA with local anaesthetics and fentanyl as well as PCA with piritramid, a highly potent mu-agonist, are routinely used in Germany. The purpose of this study was to compare these two treatments for analgesic efficacy, pulmonary function, incidence of side effects and complications in patients undergoing thoracotomy. METHODS: In this prospective randomized trial 50 patients were included. For postoperative pain control 25 patients (EA group) received thoracic epidural infusion of local anaesthetics (bupivacaine 0.125% or ropivacaine 0,2%) and fentanyl 4,5 microg/ml with a flow rate of 4-10 ml/h. 25 patients received intravenous PCA with piritramid (bolus 2, 5 mg, lock out 15 minutes, maximum of 25 mg/4 h, no background infusion). RESULTS: Analgesia at rest and while coughing, as evaluated by visual analogue scale, was significantly better in the EA group. EA also resulted in superior values of pulmonary function tests, general condition and a lower incidence of sedation and nausea. In contrast, patients with EA reported distinctly more pruritus than patients with PCA. Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the EA group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. There was one atelectasis in the EA group. No major complications related to EA or PCA were observed. CONCLUSION: In this study EA with local anaesthetics and fentanyl provided superior postoperative pain control and a lower incidence of sedation and nausea compared to intravenous PCA with piritramid, but there was no superiority as to pulmonary complications and duration of hospital stay.