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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 515-520 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Techniques in Coloproctology |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 10 2015 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -