Association of Intercostal Nerve Cryoablation During Nuss Procedure With Complications and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Intercostal nerve cryoablation with the Nuss procedure has been shown to decrease opioid requirements and hospital length of stay; however, few studies have evaluated the impact on complications and hospital costs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed for all Nuss procedures at our institution from 2016 through 2020. Outcomes were compared across 4 pain modalities: cryoablation with standardized pain regimen (n = 98), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA; n = 96), epidural (n = 36), and PCA with peripheral nerve block (PNB; n = 35). Outcomes collected included length of stay, opioid use, variable direct costs, and postoperative complications. Univariate and multivariate hierarchical regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between the pain modalities. RESULTS: Cryoablation was associated with increased total hospital cost compared with PCA (cryoablation, $11 145; PCA, $8975; P < .01), but not when compared with epidural ($9678) or PCA with PNB ($10 303). The primary driver for increased costs was operating room supplies (PCA, $2741; epidural, $2767; PCA with PNB, $3157; and cryoablation, $5938; P < .01). With multivariate analysis, cryoablation was associated with decreased length of stay (-1.94; 95% CI, -2.30 to -1.57), opioid use during hospitalization (-3.54; 95% CI, -4.81 to -2.28), and urinary retention (0.13; 95% CI, 0.05-0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation significantly reduces opioid requirements and length of stay relative to alternative modalities, but it was associated with an increase in total hospital costs relative to PCA, but not epidural or PCA with PNB. Cryoablation was not associated with allodynia or slipped bars requiring reoperation.

Randomized Assessment of the Optimal Time Interval Between Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses When Combined With the Dural Puncture Epidural Technique for Labor Analgesia.

BACKGROUND: The dural puncture epidural (DPE) and programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) techniques are recent advances in neuraxial labor analgesia. Previous studies have investigated the PIEB optimal interval for effective analgesia when a standard epidural technique is used to initiate labor analgesia. However, it is unknown whether these findings are applicable when DPE is used. METHODS: Patients were randomized into 1 of 5 groups with PIEB intervals of 35, 40, 45, 50, or 55 minutes. Labor analgesia was initiated on request with a DPE technique by epidural injection over 2 minutes of 15 mL of ropivacaine 0.1% with sufentanil 0.5 µg/mL after a dural puncture with a 25-gauge Whitacre needle. Effective analgesia was defined as no additional requirement for a patient-controlled bolus during the first stage of labor. The PIEB interval that was effective in 50% of patients (EI50) and 90% of patients (EI90) was estimated using probit regression. RESULTS: One hundred laboring parturients received the DPE technique of whom 93 proceeded to have analgesia maintained with PIEB using 10 mL boluses of ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 0.5 µg/mL. Totals of 89.5% (17/19), 84.2% (16/19), 82.4% (14/17), 52.6% (11/19), and 36.8% (7/19) of patients in groups 35, 40, 45, 50, and 55, respectively, received effective PIEB analgesia. The estimated values for EI50 and EI90 were 52.5 (95% CI, 48.4-62.6) minutes and 37.0 (95% CI, 28.4-40.9) minutes, respectively. CONCLUSION: The estimate of the PIEB optimal interval for effective analgesia after the DPE technique was comparable to that reported in previous studies when analgesia was initiated using a conventional epidural technique.

Color flow Doppler in spinal ultrasound: a novel technique for assessment of catheter position in labor epidurals.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is commonly used to facilitate epidural catheter placement. However, data are lacking regarding its potential to confirm its position in the epidural space. Our aim was to visualize flow in the epidural space of patients receiving epidural analgesia for labor using color flow Doppler ultrasound. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study that included patients who had delivered vaginally under epidural analgesia. We used a 5-2 mHz curvilinear probe in a left and right paramedian longitudinal oblique view to visualize the anterior and posterior complex at the interspace of epidural catheter insertion, one and two interspaces above and below. At each window, the color flow Doppler function was used to visualize flow within the epidural space on injection of normal saline (1 mL). If no flow was visualized at any interspace, one assessment at the level of insertion was repeated with a 1 mL air/saline mixture. We studied a convenience sample size of 40 patients. RESULTS: We visualized flow in the epidural space in all 40 patients. Flow was visualized on injection of 1 mL of saline in 37/40 patients (93%). In the remaining 3/40 patients (7%), flow was visualized with an air/saline mixture. Flow on injection of saline was visualized only at the interspace of insertion in 26/37 patients (70%), at the interspace of insertion and one interspace above in 10/37 (27%), or only at one interspace above in 1/37 (3%). Flow was visualized only on the left or on the right paramedian view in 19/37 patients (51%), despite a symmetrical sensory block in all patients. CONCLUSION: Color flow Doppler ultrasound is a feasible and fast way to determine flow in the epidural space in the obstetric population. Its potential clinical uses are confirmation of the epidural catheter position after placement, as well as troubleshooting of unsatisfactory epidural analgesia. Interestingly, our results suggest that epidural catheters predominantly remain at the interspace of insertion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05126745.

Assessment of sensory block during labour epidural analgesia: a prospective cohort study to determine the influence of the direction of testing.

PURPOSE: Assessment of sensory block level during labour epidural analgesia is an essential component of clinical practice and patient safety. Nevertheless, the methods and direction of testing are not standardized. In our hospital, sensory block testing to ice is routinely used, but while some anesthesiologists test the block from a nonanesthetized to an anesthetized area, some do it in the opposite direction. It is unknown how these two different practices affect identification of the sensory block level. The objective of this study was to determine the agreement between these two practices. METHODS: We enrolled 31 patients admitted to the labour and delivery unit in a prospective cohort study. At their request, labour epidural analgesia was performed as per institutional routine. Sensory block level to ice was assessed using opposite directions by two randomly assigned independent investigators, one and two hours after the loading dose was administered. RESULTS: Sensory block levels to ice assessed from an anesthetized area to a nonanesthetized area were lower than those when assessed with the stimulus applied in the opposite direction, typically one segment lower. DISCUSSION: Given the small difference detected with both methods, it may be acceptable to use either in clinical practice. Nevertheless, the lack of standardization may have a significant impact when comparing studies involving assessment of sensory block to ice. STUDY REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT03572439); registered 28 June 2018.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'évaluation du niveau de bloc sensoriel pendant l'analgésie péridurale obstétricale est une composante essentielle de la pratique clinique et de la sécurité des patientes. Néanmoins, les méthodes et l'orientation des tests ne sont pas standardisées. Dans notre hôpital, les tests à la glace des blocs sensoriels sont couramment utilisés, mais alors que certains anesthésiologistes testent le bloc d'une zone non anesthésiée à une zone anesthésiée, certains le font dans la direction opposée. Nous ne savons pas dans quelle mesure ces deux pratiques différentes affectent l'identification du niveau du bloc sensoriel. L'objectif de cette étude était de déterminer la concordance entre ces deux pratiques. MéTHODE: Nous avons recruté 31 patientes admises à l'unité obstétricale dans une étude de cohorte prospective. À leur demande, l'analgésie péridurale obstétricale a été réalisée conformément à la routine institutionnelle. Le niveau du bloc sensoriel tel que mesuré par un test à la glace a été évalué dans les deux directions par deux chercheurs indépendants assignés au hasard, une et deux heures après l'administration de la dose de charge. RéSULTATS: Les niveaux de blocs sensoriels tels que mesurés par un test à la glace évalués d'une zone anesthésiée à une zone non anesthésiée étaient inférieurs à ceux évalués lorsque le stimulus était appliqué dans la direction opposée, habituellement un segment plus bas. DISCUSSION: Compte tenu de la petite différence détectée entre les deux méthodes, il peut être acceptable d'utiliser l'une ou l'autre dans la pratique clinique. Néanmoins, le manque de standardisation peut avoir un impact significatif lors de la comparaison d'études impliquant l'évaluation du bloc sensoriel à l'aide d'un test à la glace. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03572439); enregistrée le 28 juin 2018.

A survey of labour epidural practices at obstetric anesthesia fellowship programs in the United States.

PURPOSE: Labour epidural analgesia (LEA) is an evolving field. Various neuraxial techniques and dosing regimens are available to the modern obstetric anesthesia provider, allowing for significant practice variability. To begin a search for consensus on optimal care, we sought to query fellowship training practices for LEA. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of institutions with American Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited obstetric anesthesiology fellowship programs. We studied the frequency of epidural initiation techniques, including combined spinal epidural (CSE), dural puncture epidural, and epidural bolus. For maintenance techniques, we appraised the use of continuous epidural infusion, programmed intermittent bolus (PIEB), and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). RESULTS: Of 40 institutions surveyed, we received 32 responses (80% response rate). Twenty-eight of 40 (70%) were included in the analysis. A plurality of institutions (12/28; 43%) preferred CSE, and among those who used CSE, 23/27 (85%) included intrathecal opioids. A majority of institutions used protocols with PIEB (55%), while almost all (92%) used PCEA. Most participants (88%) reported using dilute concentration maintenance infusions of 0.1% bupivacaine/ropivacaine or less. CONCLUSION: Despite significant variability in LEA practice, some clear patterns emerged in our survey, including preference for opioid-containing CSE and maintenance with PIEB, PCEA, and dilute epidural solutions.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'analgésie péridurale obstétricale (APO) est un domaine en évolution. Diverses techniques neuraxiales et posologies sont disponibles pour le praticien en anesthésie obstétricale moderne, ce qui permet une variabilité significative de la pratique. Pour démarrer une recherche de consensus sur les soins optimaux, nous avons cherché à déterminer les pratiques d'APO dans le cadre de formation des fellows. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une enquête électronique auprès d'établissements possédant des programmes de fellowship en anesthésiologie obstétricale accrédités par l'American Council for Graduate Medical Education. Nous avons étudié la fréquence des techniques de péridurale, notamment de rachi-péridurale combinée (RPC), de péridurale avec ponction durale et de bolus péridural. Pour les techniques de maintien, nous avons évalué l'utilisation de l'analgésie péridurale par perfusion continue, l'administration programmée de bolus périduraux (PIEB; programmed intermittent epidural bolus) et l'analgésie péridurale contrôlée par la patiente (APCP). RéSULTATS: Sur les 40 établissements sondés, nous avons reçu 32 réponses (taux de réponse de 80 %). Vingt-huit des 40 (70 %) établissements ont été inclus dans l'analyse. Plusieurs institutions (12/28; 43 %) ont répondu qu'elles préféraient la RPC, et parmi celles qui utilisaient la RPC, 23/27 (85 %) incluaient des opioïdes intrathécaux. La majorité des établissements utilisaient des protocoles avec le PIEB (55 %), tandis que presque tous (92 %) utilisaient l'APCP. La plupart des établissements participants (88 %) ont rapporté utiliser des perfusions de maintien à des concentrations diluées de bupivacaïne/ropivacaïne de 0,1 % ou moins. CONCLUSION: Malgré une variabilité significative dans la pratique de l'APO, certaines tendances claires ont émergé dans notre sondage, notamment une préférence pour les RPC contenant des opioïdes et le maintien avec un PIEB, une APCP et des solutions péridurales diluées.

Assessment of Intercostal Nerve Block Analgesia for Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients undergoing surgery is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the analgesic benefits and safety of ICNB among adults undergoing thoracic surgery. Data Sources: A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases using terms for ICNB and thoracic surgery (including thoracic surgery, thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, nerve block, intercostal nerves). The search and results were not limited by date, with the last search conducted on July 24, 2020. Study Selection: Selected studies were experimental or observational and included adult patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery in which ICNB was administered with local anesthesia via single injection, continuous infusion, or a combination of both techniques in at least 1 group of patients. For comparison with ICNB, studies that examined systemic analgesia and different forms of regional analgesia (such as thoracic epidural analgesia [TEA], paravertebral block [PVB], and other techniques) were included. These criteria were applied independently by 2 authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A total of 694 records were selected for screening. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data including patient characteristics, type of surgery, intervention analgesia, comparison analgesia, and primary and secondary outcomes were extracted independently by 3 authors. Synthesis was performed using a fixed-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity (measured as the worst static or dynamic pain using a validated 10-point scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating severe pain) and opioid consumption (measured in morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]) at prespecified intervals (0-6 hours, 7-24 hours, 25-48 hours, 49-72 hours, and >72 hours). Clinically relevant analgesia was defined as a 1-point or greater difference in pain intensity score at any interval. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and pulmonary function. Results: Of 694 records screened, 608 were excluded based on prespecified exclusion criteria. The remaining 86 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 20 of those articles were excluded. All of the 66 remaining studies (5184 patients; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [10.2] years; approximately 59% men and 41% women) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 59 studies (3325 patients) that provided data for at least 1 outcome were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Experimental studies had a high risk of bias in multiple domains, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. Marked differences (eg, crossover studies, timing of the intervention [intraoperative vs postoperative], blinding, and type of control group) were observed in the design and implementation of studies. The use of ICNB vs systemic analgesia was associated with lower static pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.40 points [95% CI, -1.46 to -1.33 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.27 points [95% CI, -1.40 to -1.13 points]) and lower dynamic pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.66 points [95% CI, -1.90 to -1.41 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.43 points [95% CI, -1.70 to -1.17 points]). Intercostal nerve block analgesia was noninferior to TEA (mean score difference in worst dynamic panic at 7-24 hours after surgery: 0.79 points; 95% CI, 0.28-1.29 points) and marginally inferior to PVB (mean score difference in worst dynamic pain at 7-24 hours after surgery: 1.29 points; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.41 points). The largest opioid-sparing effect of ICNB vs systemic analgesia occurred at 48 hours after surgery (mean difference, -10.97 MMEs; 95% CI, -12.92 to -9.02 MMEs). The use of ICNB was associated with higher MME values compared with TEA (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 48.31 MMEs; 95% CI, 36.11-60.52 MMEs) and PVB (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 3.87 MMEs; 95% CI, 2.59-5.15 MMEs). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, single-injection ICNB was associated with a reduction in pain during the first 24 hours after thoracic surgery and was clinically noninferior to TEA or PVB. Intercostal nerve block analgesia had opioid-sparing effects; however, TEA and PVB were associated with larger decreases in postoperative MMEs, suggesting that ICNB may be most beneficial for cases in which TEA and PVB are not indicated.

Use of labour neuraxial analgesia according to maternal immigration status: a national cross-sectional retrospective population-based study in France.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in neuraxial analgesia use for childbirth by maternal origin have been reported in high-resource countries. We explored the association between maternal immigrant status (characterised separately by geographic continental origin and Human Development Index [HDI] of maternal country of birth) and neuraxial analgesia use. We hypothesised that immigrant women from low-resource countries may have more limited access to neuraxial analgesia than native French women. METHODS: The study population, extracted from the 2016 National Perinatal Survey, a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of births in France, included only women who initially wished to deliver with neuraxial analgesia. We used multivariable multilevel logistic regression to explore the association between immigrant status and both use of neuraxial analgesia and its timely administration. RESULTS: Among the 6070 women included, 88.1% gave birth with neuraxial analgesia and 15.8% were immigrants. There was no difference in neuraxial analgesia use between native French women and either immigrant women by geographic continental region of origin, or immigrants from countries with low HDI. However, immigrants from countries with very high HDI were more likely to give birth with neuraxial analgesia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-5.8; P=0.018) and its timeliness <60 min after admission (aOR=1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P=0.005) compared with native French women. CONCLUSIONS: In France, immigrant women from low-resource countries have similar access to labour neuraxial analgesia to native French women. Our results suggest differential neuraxial analgesia use in favour of immigrant women from very high HDI countries compared with native women.

The Outcome of Epidural Injections in Lumbar Radiculopathy Is Not Dependent on the Presence of Disc Herniation on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Assessment of Short-Term and Long-Term Efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar radiculopathy is a condition with major physical, social, and economic consequences. Despite its favorable prognosis, the burden can be significant. In this study, we aimed to determine the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the efficacy of transforaminal epidural injections (TEIs) in patients with lumbar radiculopathy secondary to lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and other causes (non-LDH). METHODS: Patients with lumbar radiculopathy were reviewed for radiologic diagnosis based on MRI. For patients receiving TEI therapy, response after 6-8 weeks (short-term) and 16 weeks (long-term), number of injections, subsequent surgery, and patient outcome were evaluated. Treatment response was assessed by patient-reported symptom relief and numeric rating scale pain scores. RESULTS: Overall, 66% of MRI examinations showed a clinically relevant LDH. A total of 486 of 1824 patients received TEI, of whom one third did not show LDH. Of patients, 70% reported a short-term effect with significant pain reduction and 44% reported a long-term effect. No significant differences were observed between the LDH and non-LDH groups. Of patients, 59% required multiple injections and reported similar efficacy compared with patients treated with a single injection. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable part of MRI examinations in patients with lumbar radiculopathy do not show a clinically relevant LDH. Regardless of the radiologic diagnosis, most patients treated with TEI benefit in both the short-term and the long-term after a single-injection or multiple-injection regime. Subsequent injections are advisable if the effect from the first injection is unsatisfactory or wears off. MRI examination before TEI therapy may be redundant, which allows for expedition of this treatment.

CCT: continuous care trial - a randomized controlled trial of the provision of continuous care during labor by maternity care assistants in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the Steering Committee for Pregnancy and Childbirth in the Netherlands recommended the implementation of continuous care during labor in order to improve perinatal outcomes. However, in current care, routine maternity caregivers are unable to provide this type of care, resulting in an implementation rate of less than 30%. Maternity care assistants (MCAs), who already play a nursing role in low risk births in the second stage of labor and in homecare during the postnatal period, might be able to fill this gap. In this study, we aim to explore the (cost) effectiveness of adding MCAs to routine first- and second-line maternity care, with the idea that these MCAs would offer continuous care to women during labor. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be performed comparing continuous care (CC) with care-as-usual (CAU). All women intending to have a vaginal birth, who have an understanding of the Dutch language and are > 18 years of age, will be eligible for inclusion. The intervention consists of the provision of continuous care by a trained MCA from the moment the supervising maternity caregiver establishes that labor has started. The primary outcome will be use of epidural analgesia (EA). Our secondary outcomes will be referrals from primary care to secondary care, caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, adverse outcomes associated with epidural (fever, augmentation of labor, prolonged labor, postpartum hemorrhage, duration of postpartum stay in hospital for mother and/or newborn), women's satisfaction with the birth experience, cost-effectiveness, and a budget impact analysis. Cost effectiveness will be calculated by QALY per prevented EA based on the utility index from the EQ-5D and the usage of healthcare services. A standardized sensitivity analysis will be carried out to quantify the outcome in addition to a budget impact analysis. In order to show a reduction from 25 to 17% in the primary outcome (alpha 0.05 and bèta 0.20), taking into account an extra 10% sample size for multi-level analysis and an attrition rate of 10%, 2 × 496 women will be needed (n = 992). DISCUSSION: We expect that adding MCAs to the routine maternity care team will result in a decrease in the use of epidural analgesia and subsequent costs without a reduction in patient satisfaction. It will therefore be a cost-effective intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL8065 . Registered 3 October 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

[Effects of double-catheter epidural analgesia by lidocaine injection respectively on the delivery outcomes and maternal-infant complications for persistent posterior or lateral occipital position of protracted active phase].

Objective: To evaluate the effect of dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia on the delivery outcome and maternal and infant complications of persistent posterior occipital position postpartum or lateral occipital position postpartum patients with protracted active phase. Methods: The full and single-term primiparas (n=216, 37 to 42 weeks gestation, 22 to 35 years) diagnosed as persistent posterior or lateral occipital position during the active period were selected from the Department of Obstetrics of Qingdao Municipal Hospital from January 2015 to October 2019. The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups: double-tube epidural block group (n=108) and single-tube epidural block group (n=108), 1% lidocaine was used for epidural analgesia respectively under ultrasound guidance. Senior midwife or obstetricians implement new partogram, and guide women to perform position management, and push or rotate the fetal head in a timely manner. Observation indicators: general condition, the use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures, analgesia related conditions and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, delivery-related indicator, cesarean section indication, anesthesia-related indicator, maternal and child complications. Results: (1) General condition: the age, weight, height, gestational age, the ratio of persistent lateral or posterior occipital position, cephalic score, and neonatal birth weight between the two groups of women were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (2) The use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures: the women's Lamaze breathing method, Doula delivery companionship, percutaneous electrical stimulation, and other measures between two groups were compared, and there were not significant differences (all P>0.05). (3) Analgesia related conditions and VAS scores of women undergoing vaginal delivery: compared with the single-tube epidural block group (n=40), the second-partum time of the women in the double-tube epidural block group (n=59) was significantly shortened [(124±44) vs (86±33) minutes, P<0.01]; after 30 minutes of analgesia (4.4±0.5 vs 0.9±0.5, P<0.01), during forced labor in the second stage of labor (5.7±0.6 vs 1.3±0.4, P<0.01), the VAS scores of pain were also significantly reduced (P<0.01). (4) Labor-related indicators: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the natural delivery rate (21.3% vs 49.1%) and the delivery experience satisfaction rate (51.9% vs 98.1%) of women in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly increased (all P<0.01), cesarean section rate (63.0% vs 45.4%), instrument assisted rate (15.7% vs 5.6%) decreased significantly (all P<0.05). (5) Cesarean section indications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the cesarean section rate caused by prolonged labor or protracted active phase of women in the double-tube epidural block group was significantly reduced (38.0% vs 22.2%； P<0.05), and the fetal distress, intrauterine infection, and social factors caused by cesarean section between the two groups were compared, while the differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05).(6) Anesthesia related indexes: the block planes of the maternal upper tube administration in the double-tube epidural block group were mostly T7, T8, T9-L2 and L3,While,the block planes in the single-tube epidural block group were mostly T10, T11-S1, S2, S3, and the modified Bromage score were all 0. (7) Maternal and child complications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the postpartum hemorrhage rate (18.5% vs 7.4%), the perineal lateral cut rate (20.4% vs 5.6%), the neonatal asphyxia rate (12.0% vs 3.7%), ICU rate of transferred neonates (13.9% vs 4.6%) in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly reduced (all P<0.05). Soft birth canal injury rate, puerperal disease rate and neonatal birth rate between two groups were compared, and there were not statistically significant differences (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia could increase the natural delivery rate of women with posterior occipital or lateral occipital position with active stagnation, reduce the rate of cesarean section and the rate of transvaginal instruments, and reduce the complications of mother and child.

Removal of a urinary catheter before discontinuation of epidural analgesia is associated with an increased risk of postoperative urinary retention and hospital episode costs in patients undergoing surgical correction for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

OBJECTIVES: In adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients undergoing posterior spinal instrumented fusion (PSIF), we aimed to answer these questions: (1) is there a difference in postoperative urinary retention (UR) rates among patients who had removal of their Foley catheters before vs. after discontinuation of epidural analgesia (EA)? (2) Can the timing of Foley catheter removal be an independent risk factor for postoperative UR requiring recatheterization? (3) Is there an incurred cost related to treating UR? STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. BACKGROUND: EA has been widely used for postoperative pain control after PSIF for AIS. In these patients, removing the Foley catheter, inserted for intraoperative monitoring of urine output, is indicated in the early postoperative period. However, a controversy exists as to whether it should be removed before or after the EA has been discontinued. METHODS: A single-institution, longitudinally maintained database was queried to identify 297 patients who met specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patient characteristics and the order and timing of removing the urinary and epidural catheters were collected. Rates of UR were statistically compared in patients who had early vs. late urinary catheter removal. A univariate and multivariate regression analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors. Hospital episode costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients who had early (n = 66, 22%) vs. late (n = 231, 78%) urinary catheter removal had a significantly higher incidence of UR requiring recatheterization (15 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.007). Patient with early removal were almost 4 times more likely to develop UR requiring recatheterization [odds ratio (OR) 3.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-9.7, p = 0.005]. UR incurred additional costs averaging $15,000/patient (p = 0.204). CONCLUSION: In patients who had PSIF for AIS, removal of a urinary catheter before discontinuation of EA is an independent risk factor for UR, requiring recatheterization and associated with increased cost. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Assessment of postoperative pain management and comparison of effectiveness of pain relief treatment involving paravertebral block and thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing posterolateral thoracotomy.

BACKGROUND: TEA (thoracic epidural analgesia) is considered a basic method of analgesia used in thoracic surgeries. PVB (paravertebral block) is an alternative method. The thesis compares effectiveness of both methods in postoperative analgesia with particular focus on assessment of the postoperative pain management quality. METHODS: The study involved 2 groups of patients, each consisting of 30 patients undergoing posterolateral thoracotomy. The study group involved patients anesthetized applying PVB method, while the control group involved patients anesthetized with TEA. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters as well as severity of pain assessed using NRS (numeric rating scale) during the first 3 days after the surgery, number of days of hospitalization, and the need to use additional pain relievers were taken into account in both groups. Evaluation of postoperative pain management quality was performed applying Clinical Quality Indicators in Postoperative Pain Management. RESULTS: No statistical significance was demonstrated between the groups in respect of hemodynamic and respiratory parameters values, the need to use additional pain relievers and the number of days of hospitalization. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in respect of general assessment of pain management quality, except for the assessment of the lowest level of pain within the last 24 h of measurement. This result in TEA group was statistically significantly lower than the one in PVB group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In the assessment of postoperative pain management quality both analyzed methods are statistically significantly different only in the category of "lowest level of pain within the last 24 hours of measurement", to the benefit of TEA group. No statistically significant difference has been observed between the two study groups with respect to the remaining parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: KB-0012/71/15. Date of registration 22 June 2015.

The comparative accuracy of a handheld and console ultrasound device for neuraxial depth and landmark assessment.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the accuracy of epidural depth estimation of a handheld ultrasound device, with an integrated algorithm that estimates epidural depth (AU; Accuro, Rivanna Medical), to that of a console ultrasound machine (GU; GE LOGICTM S8). METHODS: Women requesting labor epidural analgesia consented to this prospective cohort study. The L2/3, L3/4, and L4/5 interspaces and the respective depths to the epidural space were identified, marked and measured using an AU and GU. An anesthesia provider who was blinded to ultrasound depth measurements performed epidural analgesia at one of the ultrasound identified insertion points and recorded the Tuohy needle depth at loss-of-resistance. Bland Altman analysis was used to measure the agreement between the epidural depths measured by the AU and GU. RESULTS: A total of 47 women were analyzed. The mean ±â€¯standard deviation body mass index of the study cohort was 29 ±â€¯5 kg/m2 [range 23-45]. The mean difference between the epidural depths measured by the AU and GU was -0.29 cm [95% limit of agreement 0.50 to -0.91]. The mean difference between the depth to the epidural space measured by the GU versus the needle depth was -0.33 cm [95% CI -0.49 to -0.16]. The previously reported AU versus needle depth was -0.61 cm [95% CI -0.79 to -0.44]. CONCLUSION: The AU and GU provided comparable epidural depth estimates. The AU device may be a reasonable alternative to more sophisticated ultrasound devices in determining the epidural space and depth in a non-obese obstetric population.

Effects of thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia on the stress response, pain relief, hospital stay, and treatment costs of patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing thoracic surgery: A single-center, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate postoperative pain management can improve outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). OBJECTIVE: To compare different combinations of anesthesia and analgesia techniques in patients with EC undergoing open thoracotomy. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, open-label trial enrolled 100 patients with EC (aged 40-65 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] grade I/II) receiving elective surgery at Jiangsu Province Hospital (China) between July 2016 and December 2017. Patients were randomized to 4 groups (n = 25 per group): total intravenous general anesthesia plus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (TIVA/PCIA); TIVA plus patient-controlled epidural analgesia (TIVA/PCEA); thoracic epidural anesthesia with intravenous general anesthesia plus PCIA (TEA-IVA/PCIA); and TEA-IVA/PCEA (TEA-IVA plus PCEA). Primary outcomes were plasma cortisol level (measured at baseline, 2 h after skin incision, surgery completion, and 24 and 48 h post-surgery) and pain (assessed at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-surgery using a visual analog scale). Secondary outcomes included time to first flatus, hospital stay and treatment costs. Postoperative adverse events (AEs) were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline and operative characteristics were similar between the 4 groups. Plasma cortisol level increased (P <.05 vs baseline) earlier in the TIVA groups (2 h after skin incision) than in the TEA-IVA groups (24 h after surgery). At 48 hours after surgery, plasma cortisol had returned to baseline levels in the PCEA groups but not in the PCIA groups. VAS pain scores at rest and during coughing were lower in the PCEA groups than in the PCIA groups (P <.05). Compared with the PCIA groups, the PCEA groups had shorter time to first flatus and shorter hospital stay, while use of TEA-IVA lowered the costs of intraoperative anesthesia (P <.05). However, the PCEA groups had a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. CONCLUSION: Thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia can reduce the stress response, improve postoperative recovery and reduce hospital stay and costs for patients with EC.

Use of perioperative epidural analgesia among Medicare patients undergoing hepatic and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize epidural analgesia (EA) use among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) procedures, identify factors associated with EA use and asses perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing HP surgery were identified using the Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with EA receipt, and assess associations of EA with in-hospital outcomes and Medicare expenditures. RESULTS: Among 20,562 patients included in the study, 6.7% (n =1362) had EA. There was no difference in the odds of complications (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93-1.19) or blood transfusions (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.03) with EA versus conventional analgesia (CA). The odds of prolonged LOS (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30) were higher with EA; the odds of in-hospital mortality were higher with conventional analgesia (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.28-2.83). Medicare payments for liver surgery were comparable among EA ($19,500) versus conventional analgesia ($19,300, p = 0.85) and slightly higher for EA ($23,600) versus conventional analgesia ($22,000, p < 0.001) for pancreatic procedures. CONCLUSION: EA utilization among Medicare patients undergoing HP was low. While EA was not associated with morbidity, it resulted in an average additional one day LOS and slightly higher expenditures in pancreatic surgery.

The cost-effectiveness of epidural, patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia, or transversus abdominis plane infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain management.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia (IVPCA), epidural analgesia and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) infiltrations are frequently used postoperative pain management modalities. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with liposomal bupivacaine for analgesia in the first 72 h postoperatively in patients undergoing major lower abdominal surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: We obtained data on major lower-abdominal surgeries performed under general anesthesia on adult patients between January 2012 and July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was comparing the use of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with liposomal bupivacaine for analgesia in the first 72 h postoperatively. MEASUREMENTS: A decision analytic model was used to estimate the health outcomes for patients undergoing major lower abdominal surgery. The primary outcome was time-weighted pain from 0 to 72 h after surgery, as measured by numerical rating scale pain scores. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the hospital as the party responsible for most costs related to surgery. MAIN RESULTS: From the base case analysis, IVPCA was the optimal strategy regarding cost and effect. TAP with LB, however, was only narrowly dominated, while epidural was clearly dominated. From the sensitivity analysis at willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150, IV PCA and TAP infiltration were each the optimal strategy for approximately 50% of the iterations. At WTP of $10,000, epidural was only the optimal strategy in 10% of the iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in the literature to compare the cost-effectiveness of epidural, IVPCA, and TAP infiltrations with LB. Within reasonable WTP values, there is little differentiation in cost-effectiveness between IVPCA and TAP infiltration with LB. Epidural does not become a cost-effective strategy even at much higher WTP values.

An economic analysis of patient controlled remifentanil and epidural analgesia as pain relief in labour (RAVEL trial); a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of a strategy of patient controlled remifentanil versus epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour. DESIGN: We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, the RAVEL trial. Costs were analysed from a health care perspective alongside the RAVEL trial. POPULATION: Pregnant women of intermediate to high risk beyond 32 weeks gestation who planned vaginal delivery. METHODS: Women were randomised before the onset of labour, to receive either patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia when pain relief was requested during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome for effectiveness was satisfaction with pain relief, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Here, we present an economic analysis from a health care perspective including costs from the start of labour to ten days postpartum. Health-care utilization was documented in the Case Report Forms and by administering an additional questionnaire. RESULTS: The costs in the patient controlled remifentanil group (n = 687) and in the epidural group (n = 671) were €2900 versus €3185 respectively (mean difference of -€282 (95% CI -€611 to €47)). The (non-significant) higher costs in the epidural analgesia group could be mainly attributed to higher costs of neonatal admission. CONCLUSION: From an economic perspective, there is no preferential pain treatment in labouring intermediate to high risk women. Since patient controlled remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to AUC for satisfaction with pain relief we recommend epidural analgesia as the method of choice. However, if appropriately counselled on effect and side effects there is, from an economic perspective, no reason to deny women patient controlled remifentanil.

Liposomal Bupivacaine Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Epidural Analgesia in a Colon and Rectal Surgery Enhanced Recovery Pathway: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal pain management is an integral part of enhanced recovery pathways. The most effective pain management strategies have not been determined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This is a single-institution, open-label randomized (1:1) trial. SETTING: This study compared liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block with epidural analgesia in patients undergoing elective open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery in an enhanced recovery pathway. PATIENTS: Two hundred were enrolled. Following randomization, allocation, and follow-up, there were 92 patients with transversus abdominis plane block and 87 patients with epidural analgesia available for analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions comprised liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block versus epidural analgesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were numeric pain scores and the overall benefit of analgesia scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the Numeric Pain Scale and Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score between groups. Time trend analysis revealed that patients with transversus abdominis plane block had higher numeric pain scores on the day of surgery, but that the relationship was reversed later in the postoperative period. Opioid use was significantly less in the transversus abdominis plane block group (206.84 mg vs 98.29 mg, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in time to GI recovery, hospital length of stay, and postoperative complications. Cost was considerably more for the epidural analgesia group. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial shows that perioperative pain management with liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block is as effective as epidural analgesia and is associated with less opioid use and less cost. These data and the more favorable risk profile suggest that liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block is a viable multimodal perioperative pain management option for this patient population in an established enhanced recovery pathway. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02591407). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A737.

Implications of Thoracic Epidural Analgesia on Hospital Charges in Rib Fracture Patients.

Objective: Rib fractures are present in more than 150,000 patients admitted to US trauma centers each year. Those who fracture two or more ribs are typically treated with oral analgesic drugs and are discharged with few complications. The cost of this care generally reflects its brevity. When a patient fractures three or more ribs, there is an elevated risk of complication. In response, treatments are often broadened and their durations prolonged; this affects cost. While health, function, and survival have been widely explored, patient billing has not. Thus, we evaluated the financial implications of one mode of treatment for patients with rib fractures: thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the registry of a level II trauma center. All patients who fractured one or more ribs (n = 1,344) were considered; 382 of those patients were not candidates for epidural placement and were eliminated from analyses. Epidural placement was determined by individual clinicians. We used multiple linear regressions to determine predictors of cost. Results: After eliminating patients who were not eligible to receive TEA, the average patient bill was $59,123 ($10,631 per day of treatment). The administration of TEA predicted a 25% reduction in total billing (99% CI = -$21,429.55- -$7,794.66) and a 24% reduction in per-day billing (99% CI = -$3,745.99- -$1,276.14). Conclusions: Patients who received TEA were more severely injured and required longer treatments; controlling for these variables, the use of TEA associated with reductions in the cost of receiving care. From an administrative and insurance perspective, more frequent reliance on TEA may be indicated.

The Accuracy of a Handheld Ultrasound Device for Neuraxial Depth and Landmark Assessment: A Prospective Cohort Trial.

This study investigated the accuracy of a wireless handheld ultrasound with pattern recognition software that recognizes lumbar spine bony landmarks and measures depth to epidural space (Accuro, Rivanna Medical, Charlottesville, VA) (AU). AU measurements to epidural space were compared to Tuohy needle depth to epidural space (depth to loss of resistance at epidural placement). Data from 47 women requesting labor epidural analgesia were analyzed. The mean difference between depth to epidural space measured by AU versus needle depth was -0.61 cm (95% confidence interval, -0.79 to -0.44), with a standard deviation of 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.73). Using the AU-identified insertion point resulted in successful epidural placement at first attempt in 87% of patients, 78% without redirects.