Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy: an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia

M. daSilva, D. Lomelin, J. Tsui, M. Klinginsmith, C. Tadaki, Sean J Langenfeld

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials. Methods: The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used. Results: A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374 %) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03 %; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1 %; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6 %; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3 %; p = 0.942). Conclusion: Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)515-520
Number of pages6
JournalTechniques in Coloproctology
Volume19
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 10 2015

Fingerprint

Epidural Analgesia
Colectomy
Analgesia
Pain
Incidence
Ileus
Length of Stay
Catheters
International Classification of Diseases
Urinary Tract Infections
Analgesics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Demography
Databases
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Colorectal surgery
  • Epidural analgesia
  • Laparoscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy : an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia. / daSilva, M.; Lomelin, D.; Tsui, J.; Klinginsmith, M.; Tadaki, C.; Langenfeld, Sean J.

In: Techniques in Coloproctology, Vol. 19, No. 9, 10.09.2015, p. 515-520.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{044273612fef4089b05c9aa0ec5fda95,
title = "Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy: an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials. Methods: The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used. Results: A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374 {\%}) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03 {\%}; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1 {\%}; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6 {\%}; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3 {\%}; p = 0.942). Conclusion: Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.",
keywords = "Colorectal surgery, Epidural analgesia, Laparoscopy",
author = "M. daSilva and D. Lomelin and J. Tsui and M. Klinginsmith and C. Tadaki and Langenfeld, {Sean J}",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s10151-015-1336-z",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "515--520",
journal = "Techniques in Coloproctology",
issn = "1123-6337",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag Italia",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy

T2 - an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia

AU - daSilva, M.

AU - Lomelin, D.

AU - Tsui, J.

AU - Klinginsmith, M.

AU - Tadaki, C.

AU - Langenfeld, Sean J

PY - 2015/9/10

Y1 - 2015/9/10

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials. Methods: The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used. Results: A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374 %) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03 %; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1 %; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6 %; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3 %; p = 0.942). Conclusion: Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials. Methods: The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used. Results: A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374 %) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03 %; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1 %; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6 %; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3 %; p = 0.942). Conclusion: Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

KW - Colorectal surgery

KW - Epidural analgesia

KW - Laparoscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941191272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941191272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10151-015-1336-z

DO - 10.1007/s10151-015-1336-z

M3 - Article

C2 - 26188986

AN - SCOPUS:84941191272

VL - 19

SP - 515

EP - 520

JO - Techniques in Coloproctology

JF - Techniques in Coloproctology

SN - 1123-6337

IS - 9

ER -