Impact of analgesic modality on stress response following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is perceived to modulate the stress response after open surgery. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and impact of measuring the stress response attenuation by post-operative analgesic modalities following laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a double-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial at two UK sites. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were randomised to receive either thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) or continuous local anaesthetic infusion to the extraction site via wound infusion catheter (WIC) post-operatively. The aim of this study was to measure the stress response to the analgesic modality by measuring peripheral venous blood samples analysed for serum concentrations of insulin, cortisol, epinephrine and interleukin-6 at induction of anaesthesia, at 3, 6, 12 and 24 h after the start of operation. Secondary endpoints included mean pain score in the first 48 h, length of hospital stay, post-operative complications and 30-day re-admission rates. RESULTS: There was a difference between the TEA and WIC groups that varies across time. In the TEA group, there was significant but transient reduced level of serum epinephrine and a higher level of insulin at 3 and 6 h. In the WIC, there was a significant reduction of interleukin-6 values, especially at 12 h. There was no significant difference observed in the other endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant transient attenuating effect of TEA on stress response following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and within ERAS as expressed by serum epinephrine and insulin levels. Continuous wound infusion with local anaesthetic, however, attenuates cytokine response as expressed by interleukin-6.

Feasibility study of analgesia via epidural versus continuous wound infusion after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: With the adoption of enhanced recovery and emerging new modalities of analgesia after laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR), the role of epidural analgesia has been questioned. This pilot trial assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing epidural analgesia and use of a local anaesthetic wound infusion catheter (WIC) following LCR. METHODS: Between April 2010 and May 2011, patients undergoing elective LCR in two centres were randomized to analgesia via epidural or WIC. Sham procedures were used to blind surgeons, patients and outcome assessors. The primary outcome was the feasibility of a large RCT, and all outcomes for a definitive trial were tested. The success of blinding was assessed using a mixed-methods approach. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were eligible, of whom 34 were randomized (mean(s.d.) age 70(11·8) years). Patients were followed up per-protocol; there were no deaths, and five patients had a total of six complications. Challenges with capturing pain data were identified and resolved. Mean(s.d.) pain scores on the day of discharge were 1·9(3·1) in the epidural group and 0·7(0·7) in the WIC group. Median length of stay was 4 (range 2-35, interquartile range 3-5) days. Mean use of additional analgesia (intravenous morphine equivalents) was 12 mg in the WIC arm and 9 mg in the epidural arm. Patient blinding was successful in both arms. Qualitative interviews suggested that patients found participation in the trial acceptable and that they would consider participating in a future trial. CONCLUSION: A blinded RCT investigating the role of epidural and WIC administration for postoperative analgesia following LCR is feasible. Rigorous standard operating procedures for data collection are required.

Factors predicting deviation from an enhanced recovery programme and delayed discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

AIM: The study aimed to identify factors that predict postoperative deviation from an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) and/or delayed discharge following colorectal surgery. METHOD: Data were prospectively collected from all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection between January 2006 and December 2009. They included Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) variables, body mass index (BMI), sex, preoperative serum albumin, pathology, conversion from a laparoscopic to an open approach and postoperative length of hospital stay. RESULTS: There were 176 patients (90 women) of mean age 68 years. Fifteen (9%) operations were converted from laparoscopic to open. The remainder were completed laparoscopically. Fifty-five (31%) deviated from the ERP, with most failing multiple elements. The most common reason was failure to mobilize, which often occurred in conjunction with paralytic ileus or analgesic failure. Factors independently predicting ERP deviation on multivariate analysis were pathology and intra-operative complications. The median length of stay was 5 days. Sixty-four (36%) patients had a prolonged length of stay that was predicted by age, number of procedures and ERP deviation. CONCLUSION: Pathology and intra-operative complications are independent predictors of ERP deviation. Prolonged length of stay can be predicted by age, multiple procedures and ERP deviation. Failure to mobilize should be considered as a red flag sign prompting further investigation following colorectal resection.