Display options
Cite
Jaroszewski DE, Temkit M, Ewais MM, et al. Randomized trial of epidural vs. subcutaneous catheters for managing pain after modified Nuss in adults. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8(8):2102-10doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.06.62.
Jaroszewski, D. E., Temkit, M., Ewais, M. M., Luckritz, T. C., Stearns, J. D., Craner, R. C., Gaitan, B. D., Ramakrishna, H., Thunberg, C. A., Weis, R. A., Myers, K. M., Merritt, M. V., & Rosenfeld, D. M. (2016). Randomized trial of epidural vs. subcutaneous catheters for managing pain after modified Nuss in adults. Journal of thoracic disease, 8(8), 2102-10. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.06.62
Jaroszewski, Dawn E, et al. "Randomized trial of epidural vs. subcutaneous catheters for managing pain after modified Nuss in adults." Journal of thoracic disease vol. 8,8 (2016): 2102-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.06.62
Jaroszewski DE, Temkit M, Ewais MM, Luckritz TC, Stearns JD, Craner RC, Gaitan BD, Ramakrishna H, Thunberg CA, Weis RA, Myers KM, Merritt MV, Rosenfeld DM. Randomized trial of epidural vs. subcutaneous catheters for managing pain after modified Nuss in adults. J Thorac Dis. 2016 Aug;8(8):2102-10. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.06.62. PMID: 27621865; PMCID: PMC4999743.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Thorac Dis. 2016 Aug;8(8):2102-10. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.06.62.

Randomized trial of epidural vs. subcutaneous catheters for managing pain after modified Nuss in adults.

Journal of thoracic disease

Dawn E Jaroszewski, M'hamed Temkit, MennatAllah M Ewais, Todd C Luckritz, Joshua D Stearns, Ryan C Craner, Brantley D Gaitan, Harish Ramakrishna, Christopher A Thunberg, Ricardo A Weis, Kelly M Myers, Marianne V Merritt, David M Rosenfeld

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
  2. Department of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
  3. Department of Pharmacy, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
  4. Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

PMID: 27621865 PMCID: PMC4999743 DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2016.06.62

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) is now performed in adults. Managing adult patients' pain postoperatively has been challenging due to increased chest wall rigidity and the pressure required for supporting the elevated sternum. The optimal pain management regimen has not been determined. We designed this prospective, randomized trial to compare postoperative pain management and outcomes between thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and bilateral subcutaneous infusion pump catheters (On-Q).

METHODS: Patients undergoing MIRPE (modified Nuss) underwent random assignment to TEA or On-Q group. Both groups received intravenous, patient-controlled opioid analgesia, with concomitant delivery of local anesthetic. Primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), opioid use, and pain scores.

RESULTS: Of 85 randomly assigned patients, 68 completed the study [52 men, 76.5%; mean (range) age, 32.2 (20.0-58.0) years; Haller index, 5.9 (range, 3.0-26.7)]. The groups were equally matched for preoperative variables; however, the On-Q arm had more patients (60.3%). No significant differences were found between groups in mean daily pain scores (P=0.52), morphine-equivalent opioid usage (P=0.28), or hospital stay 3.5 vs. 3.3 days (TEA vs. On-Q; P=0.55). Thirteen patients randomized to TEA refused the epidural and withdrew from the study because they perceived greater benefit of the On-Q system.

CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative pain management in adults after MIRPE can be difficult. Both continuous local anesthetic delivery by TEA and On-Q catheters with concomitant, intravenous, patient-controlled anesthesia maintained acceptable analgesia with a reasonable LOS. In our cohort, there was preference for the On-Q system for pain management.

Keywords: Minimally invasive surgery; funnel chest; pectus excavatum (PE); postoperative care; postoperative pain

Conflict of interest statement

Dawn E. Jaroszewski discloses consulting relationship with Zimmer Biomet. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006 Nov;30(5):801-4 - PubMed
  2. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006 Sep;132(3):524-9 - PubMed
  3. J Pediatr Surg. 2002 Mar;37(3):437-45 - PubMed
  4. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007 Oct;134(4):865-70 - PubMed
  5. Surg Clin North Am. 2012 Jun;92(3):669-84, ix - PubMed
  6. Ann Surg. 2010 Dec;252(6):1072-81 - PubMed
  7. J Pediatr Surg. 2010 Sep;45(9):1767-71 - PubMed
  8. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997 Jul;12(1):82-7 - PubMed
  9. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;23(2):230-9 - PubMed
  10. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014 Aug;28(4):973-8 - PubMed
  11. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011 Aug;40(2):334-7 - PubMed
  12. ANZ J Surg. 2005 Jun;75(6):421-4 - PubMed
  13. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008 Nov;34(5):1057-61 - PubMed
  14. J Surg Res. 2013 Nov;185(1):12-4 - PubMed
  15. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Mar;147(3):1093-5 - PubMed
  16. J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Oct;195(4):575-7 - PubMed
  17. World J Surg. 2007 Jan;31(1):26-9; discussion 30 - PubMed
  18. Anesthesiology. 1997 Jan;86(1):55-63 - PubMed
  19. J Pediatr Surg. 1998 Apr;33(4):545-52 - PubMed
  20. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013 Jun;27(3):423-6 - PubMed
  21. J Anesth. 2006;20(1):48-50 - PubMed
  22. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Sep;102(3):993-1003 - PubMed
  23. Korean J Pain. 2012 Oct;25(4):267-71 - PubMed
  24. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;37(2):166-74 - PubMed
  25. J Pediatr Surg. 2012 Jan;47(1):148-53 - PubMed
  26. J Pediatr Surg. 2001 Feb;36(2):324-8 - PubMed
  27. J Trauma. 2011 Dec;71(6):1548-52; discussion 1552 - PubMed
  28. Anesth Analg. 2006 Aug;103(2):322-7, table of contents - PubMed
  29. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006 Dec;132(6):1369-73 - PubMed
  30. J Pediatr Surg. 2014 Jun;49(6):919-23; discussion 923 - PubMed
  31. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 Sep;80(3):1073-7 - PubMed
  32. J Pediatr Surg. 1996 Jan;31(1):105-7; discussion 107-8 - PubMed

Publication Types