Erector Spinae versus Surgically Placed Pain Catheters for Thoracic Outlet Decompression.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative care after surgery for thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) involves multimodal pain control. Pain catheters with bupivacaine infusion are a modality to minimize perioperative narcotic use. Our study aims to compare surgically placed pain catheters (SP) with erector spinae pain catheters (ESP) placed by the anesthesia pain service. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained surgical TOS database identified patients undergoing transaxillary first rib resection (FRR) who had either SP or ESP placed for pain control. Patients were matched for age and gender. Data collected included demographics, operative details, and perioperative pain medication use. Narcotic pain medication doses were converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MMEs) for comparison between groups. Pain medications were collected for several time points: intraoperatively, for each postoperative day (POD) and for the entire hospital stay. RESULTS: Eighty-eight total patients were selected for comparison: 44 patients in the SP and ESP groups. Patients in each group did not differ with regards to age, body mass index, gender, diagnosis, or comorbidities. There were no differences in preoperative narcotic use, preoperative pain score, or Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. All patients underwent FRR. Concurrent cervical rib resection was performed in 6.8% SP and 6.8% ESP patients (P = 1.00), pectoralis minor tenotomy in 34.1% SP and 29.5% ESP patients (P = 0.65), and venogram in 31.8% SP and 31.8% ESP patients (P = 1.00). Mean operating room time was 90.0 min in SP and 105.3 min in ESP cases (P = 0.15). Mean length of stay was 1.9 days for SP and 1.8 days for ESP patients (P = 0.56). There were no significant differences in intraoperative narcotics dosing in MME (SP: 22.1 versus ESP: 25.3, P = 0.018). On POD 0, there were no differences in total narcotics dosing (MME) (SP: 112.0 versus ESP: 100.7, P = 0.59), or in the use of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or muscle relaxants. A similar trend in narcotics dosing was observed on POD 1 (SP: 58.6 versus ESP: 69.7, P = 0.43) and POD 2 (SP: 23.5 versus ESP: 71.3, P = 0.23). On POD 1, there was a higher percentage of SP patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (63.6% vs. 40.9%, P = 0.024); however, this difference was not observed on POD 2. There were no differences in acetaminophen or muscle relaxant use on POD 1 or 2. Total hospital stay MME was similar between groups (SP: 215.9 versus ESP: 250.9, P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Pain catheters with bupivacaine infusions are helpful adjuncts in postoperative pain control after FRR for TOS. This study compares SP to ESP and demonstrates no difference in narcotics use between SP and ESP groups. SP should be used for pain control in facilities which do not have an anesthesia pain service available for ESP placement.

AMPREDICT: 1 Year Mortality Post-Amp. Evaluating the Prognostic Accuracy of AMPREDICT in Predicting One-Year Mortality Following Major Lower Limb Amputation.

OBJECTIVE: Accurately predicting postoperative outcomes is fundamental to informed clinical decision making, and alignment of patient, and family expectations. The AMPREDICT Decision Support Tool is a predictive tool designed to assess the probability of mortality one year after major and minor amputations. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of AMPREDICT in our Veteran patient population. METHODS: Retrospective review of lower extremity amputations completed at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs hospital from 2000 to 2020. Staged open amputations, and previous minor amputations were excluded. Using the AMPREDICT tool, the probability of mortality one-year post-surgery for single stage transfemoral and transtibial amputations was calculated, then compared with observed patient outcomes. Observed to predicted mortality was compared through boxplots, at one year after surgery, confidence intervals were calculated, and group means were compared using Students T-test. Receiver operator curves were constructed to assess discriminatory capacity of the tool. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: 423 patients underwent 650 lower extremity amputations during our study period. 267 patients underwent single stage transfemoral or transtibial amputations comprising our study cohort. The average age at amputation was 66 years with an average age of death at 71 years. AMPREDICT tool's prognostic capability varied across the two amputations studied. For single staged transfemoral amputations, prediction aligned closely with observed outcomes, as indicated by a significant p-value of 0.0002 (C.I. 12.73 - 36.37). For single stage transtibial amputations, the predictions were also significant, p-value 0.0017 (C.I. 5.25 - 21.20), though had a wider prediction range. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the reliability of the AMPREDICT tool in predicting one-year mortality for patients undergoing major lower limb amputations. The predictive accuracy was found to be statistically significant for both single staged transfemoral and transtibial amputations. These findings suggest that AMPREDICT may be a valuable tool in the clinical setting for patients undergoing major lower limb amputation.