Epidural versus PCA Pain Management after Pectus Excavatum Repair: A Multi-Institutional Prospective Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pain control remains the primary reason for inpatient stay after minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum. In a previous study, our group reported that early pain control was better in patients managed with a thoracic epidural, while late pain control was better in patients managed with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). After revising our epidural transition and modifying the PCA protocol, we conducted a multi-institutional prospective randomized trial to evaluate these two pain control strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to epidural or PCA following minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum with standard protocols for each arm. Primary outcome was length of stay with secondary variables including mean patient pain scores, complications, and parental satisfaction. Scores were pooled for the two groups and reported as means with standard deviation. Results were compared using t-tests and one-way analysis of variance with p-value < 0.05 determining significance. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were enrolled, 32 epidural and 33 PCA. Enrollment was stopped early when we developed an alternative strategy for controlling these patients' pain. There was no difference in length of stay in hours between the two arms; epidural 111.3 ± 18.5 versus PCA 111.4 ± 51.4, p = 0.98. Longer operative time was found in the epidural group. Nine patients in the epidural group (28%) required a PCA in addition to epidural for adequate pain control. Mean pain scores were lower on postoperative day 0 in the epidural group compared with the PCA groups, but were otherwise similar. CONCLUSION: In our prospective randomized trial, PCA is just as effective as thoracic epidural in decreasing early postoperative pain scores after minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum.

Postoperative pain control modalities for pectus excavatum repair: A prospective observational study of cryoablation compared to results of a randomized trial of epidural vs patient-controlled analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Pain following bar placement for pectus excavatum is the dominant factor post-operatively and determines length of stay (LOS). We recently adopted intercostal cryoablation as our preferred method of pain control following minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair. We compared the outcomes of cryoablation to results of a recently concluded trial of epidural (EPI) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) protocols. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients undergoing bar placement for pectus excavatum using intercostal cryoablation. Results are reported and compared with those of a randomized trial comparing EPI with PCA. Comparisons of medians were performed using Kruskal-Wallis H tests with alpha 0.05. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were treated with cryoablation compared to 32 epidural and 33 PCA patients from the trial. Cryoablation was associated with longer operating time (101 min, versus 58 and 57 min for epidural and PCA groups, p < 0.01), resulted in less time to pain control with oral medication (21 h, versus 72 and 67 h, p < 0.01), and decreased LOS (1 day, versus 4.3 and 4.2 days, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Intercostal cryoablation during minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair reduces LOS and perioperative opioid consumption compared with both EPI and PCA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Does Intravenous Acetaminophen Improve Postoperative Pain Control after Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis? A Prospective Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The recent increased awareness of the dangers of opioids in the United States has highlighted the need to minimize narcotics and identify nonopioid options for pain control after surgery. With evidence suggesting that intravenous acetaminophen (IVA) can be an opioid sparing option, we conducted a prospective, randomized trial that evaluated the effect of IVA on the postoperative pain course of children with perforated appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After IRB approval, children with perforated appendicitis were randomized to receive postoperative IVA with the standard patient/nurse-controlled analgesia (PCA) or to receive the PCA alone. All patients were treated according to an evidence-based treatment protocol. The primary outcome was duration of time on PCA. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were analyzed from 7/14 to 11/15. There was no statistically significant difference in the time to transition from the PCA to oral pain medications for children given IVA compared with children not receiving IVA (76.4 ± 32.5 versus 86.7 ± 49.3 hours; p = 0.73). Children in the IVA group had no statistically significant difference in intravenous narcotics delivered and pain scores compared with the non-IVA group. There was no significant difference in the amount of oral narcotics between both groups (2.8 ± 2.4 versus 2.9 ± 2.5; p = 0.88). Patients who received IVA had higher medication charges ($3752.7 ± 1618.3 vs. $1198.19 ± 521.51; p < 0.01), but not total hospital charges ($53842.0 ± 19409.2 vs. $50501.03 ± 16223.32; p = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Children given IVA showed no difference in the transition time off the PCA and to oral pain medications after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.

Outcomes Using Cryoablation for Postoperative Pain Control in Children Following Minimally Invasive Pectus Excavatum Repair.

PURPOSE: Pain is the main factor that determines the postoperative course for patients undergoing pectus bar placement. Cryoablation of the intercostal nerves has been suggested to mitigate this pain. We instituted a protocol for using intercostal cryoablation and report our early results compared to our immediately previous cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing minimally invasive repair for pectus excavatum between January 1, 2017, and August 21, 2017. Demographic data, anthropometrics, operative times, type and duration of patient analgesia, and postoperative length of stay were collected. Descriptive statistics were performed with all means reported ± standard deviations. Comparisons between groups were analyzed on STATA using T-tests with a P value <.05 determined as significant. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were treated for pectus excavatum during the study period with 9 (32%) undergoing cryoablation. Mean number of rib spaces ablated was 5 ± 0.53 with no reported intraoperative complications. Mean operative time was 30 minutes longer in the cryoablation group (P = .00). Days to only oral pain medication was shorter in the cryoablation group, (1.22 ± 0.66 day versus 2.63 ± 0.68 day, P = .00). Length of stay, in days, was shorter in the cryoablation group (1.4 ± 0.72 days versus 4.0 ± 1.0 days, P = .00). There were no reported complications from cryoablation or bar placement during the study period. Days to discontinuation of oral narcotics were less in the cryoablation group (8.2 ± 7.0 versus 18.2 ± 10.4, P = .00). CONCLUSION: Cryoablation after pectus bar placement dramatically decreases narcotic usage and postoperative length of stay.

Epidural versus Patient-Controlled Analgesia after Pediatric Thoracotomy for Malignancy: A Preliminary Review.

Introduction The use of thoracic epidural is standard in adult thoracotomy patients facilitating earlier mobilization, deep breathing, and minimizing narcotic effects. However, a recent randomized trial in pediatric patients who undergo repair of pectus excavatum suggests patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) produces a less costly, minimally invasive postoperative course compared with epidural. Given that thoracotomy is typically less painful than pectus bar placement, we compared the outcomes of epidural to PCA for pain management after pediatric thoracotomy. Methods A retrospective review of 17 oncologic thoracotomies was performed at a children's hospital from 2004 to 2013. Data points included operative details, epidural or PCA use, urinary catheterization, days to regular diet, days to oral pain regimen, postoperative pain scores, length of stay, and anesthesia charges. Patients were excluded if they did not have epidural or PCA following thoracotomy. Results Six thoracotomies were managed with an epidural and 11 with a PCA. Three epidural patients were opiate naïve compared with two with a PCA. The most common indication for thoracotomy was metastatic osteosarcoma (n = 13). When comparing epidural to PCA, there was no significant difference in days to removal of Foley catheter, regular diet, oral pain control, length of stay, or total operating room time. Postoperative pain scores were also comparable. The mean anesthesia charges were significantly higher in patients with an epidural than with a PCA. Conclusion Epidural catheter and PCA provided comparable pain relief and objective recovery course in children who underwent thoracotomy for oncologic disease; however, epidural catheter placement was associated with increased anesthesia charges, suggesting that PCA is a noninvasive, cost-effective alternative.

Pectus excavatum: Benefit of randomization.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive bar repair for pectus patients produces substantial pain which dictates the post-operative hospital course. We have data from 2 randomized trials comparing epidural catheter placement to patient controlled analgesia. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who were enrolled in the trials to those that did not participate in the trials. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients not enrolled in the trials to compare to the prospective datasets from October 2006 to June 2014. Perioperative outcomes were examined. RESULTS: There were 135 patients in a study protocol (IS) and 195 patients that were not enrolled in a study (OS). Comparing the entire IS and OS groups, length of stay was less in the IS group, as was time to regular diet. Average pain scores, operative time and complication rates were not significantly different between the groups. Of the IS patients a significantly lower number of patients had epidural failure, requiring substitution of a PCA for pain control. CONCLUSIONS: There are benefits derived from participating in our randomized trials comparing epidural to patient controlled analgesia after bar placement for pectus excavatum regardless of which arm is utilized.