Perioperative pain management with regional analgesia techniques for visceral cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Regional analgesia following visceral cancer surgery might provide an advantage but evidence for best treatment options related to risk-benefit is unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with meta-analysis and GRADE assessment. SETTING: Postoperative pain treatment. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing visceral cancer surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Any kind of peripheral (PRA) or epidural analgesia (EA) with/without systemic analgesia (SA) was compared to SA with or without placebo treatment or any other regional anaesthetic techniques. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest and during activity 24 h after surgery, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and postoperative paralytic ileus. MAIN RESULTS: 59 RCTs (4345 participants) were included. EA may reduce pain intensity at rest (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.35 to -0.75, low certainty evidence) and during activity 24 h after surgery (MD -1.83; 95% CI: -2.34 to -1.33, very low certainty evidence). PRA likely results in little difference in pain intensity at rest (MD -0.75; 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.31, moderate certainty evidence) and pain during activity (MD -0.93; 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.53, moderate certainty evidence) 24 h after surgery compared to SA. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (very low certainty evidence) and development of paralytic ileus (very low certainty of evidence) between EA, respectively PRA and SA. CONCLUSIONS: Following visceral cancer surgery EA may reduce pain intensity. In contrast, PRA had only limited effects on pain intensity at rest and during activity. However, we are uncertain regarding the effect of both techniques on block-related adverse events and paralytic ileus. Further research is required focusing on regional analgesia techniques especially following laparoscopic visceral cancer surgery.

Regional anaesthesia for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, visceral, non-oncological surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, non-oncological visceral surgery in adults is challenging. Regional anaesthesia could be a promising component in multimodal pain management. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment. Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest/during movement after 24 h, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and the number of patients with postoperative paralytic ileus. RESULTS: 82 trials were included. Peripheral regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia may result in a slight reduction of pain intensity at rest at 24 h (mean difference (MD) - 0.72 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.91 to - 0.54; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), which was not clinically relevant. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect on pain intensity during activity at 24 h (MD -0.8 points; 95%CI - 1.17 to - 0.42; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the incidence of block-related adverse events. In contrast, neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) may reduce postoperative pain intensity at rest in a clinical relevant matter (MD - 1.19 points; 95%CI - 1.99 to - 0.39; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), but the effect is uncertain during activity (MD - 1.13 points; 95%CI - 2.31 to 0.06; I2 = 95%; very low-certainty evidence). There is uncertain evidence, that neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) increases the risk for block-related adverse events (relative risk (RR) 5.11; 95%CI 1.13 to 23.03; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that regional anaesthesia might be an important part of multimodal postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic visceral surgery, e.g. in patients at risk for severe postoperative pain, and with large differences between surgical procedures and settings. Further research is required to evaluate the use of adjuvants and the additional benefit of regional anaesthesia in ERAS programmes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021258281.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded. RESULTS: Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults. CONCLUSION: This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

[Procedure Specific Pain Therapy - the PROSPECT Idea]. / Prozedurenspezifische Schmerztherapie ­ der PROSPECT-Ansatz.

Acute pain therapy following operative or interventional procedures has become a compulsory component of a modern perioperative patient management. A structured pain regimen has several clear advantages: it leads to an improvement of the patients' quality of life in the short term, it reduces perioperative morbidity in the medium term, it reduces pain chronification in the long term, at the same time improving the economic efficiency due to an accelerated mobilization, a reduction of the hospitalization and an avoidance of complication inherent costs.This article provides detailed information on the change of paradigm, away from a generalized and rather unspecific acute pain therapy towards a problem oriented procedure specific regimen. It points out two examples of the PROSPECT (PROcedure SPECific pain managemenT) methodology and explains its background.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]. / Perioperative Schmerztherapie mit Nichtopioidanalgetika : Gemeinsame interdisziplinäre Empfehlung der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics. METHODS: An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process. RESULTS: The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs. CONCLUSION: The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]. / Perioperative Schmerztherapie mit Nichtopioidanalgetika : Gemeinsame interdisziplinäre Empfehlung der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics. METHODS: An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process. RESULTS: The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs. CONCLUSION: The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]. / Perioperative Schmerztherapie mit Nichtopioidanalgetika : Gemeinsame interdisziplinäre Empfehlung der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics. METHODS: An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process. RESULTS: The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs. CONCLUSION: The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

Pain management after open liver resection: Procedure-Specific Postoperative Pain Management (PROSPECT) recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Effective pain control improves postoperative rehabilitation and enhances recovery. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence and to develop recommendations for optimal pain management after open liver resection using Procedure-Specific Postoperative Pain Management (PROSPECT) methodology. STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language from January 2010 to October 2019 assessing pain after liver resection using analgesic, anesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: Of 121 eligible studies identified, 31 RCTs and 3 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative and intraoperative interventions that improved postoperative pain relief were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, continuous thoracic epidural analgesia, and subcostal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks. Limited procedure-specific evidence was found for intravenous dexmedetomidine, intravenous magnesium, intrathecal morphine, quadratus lumborum blocks, paravertebral nerve blocks, continuous local anesthetic wound infiltration and postoperative interpleural local anesthesia. No evidence was found for intravenous lidocaine, ketamine, dexamethasone and gabapentinoids. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this review, we suggest an analgesic strategy for open liver resection, including acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combined with thoracic epidural analgesia or bilateral oblique subcostal TAP blocks. Systemic opioids should be considered as rescue analgesics. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm and clarify the efficacy of the recommended analgesic regimen in the context of an enhanced recovery program.

Pain therapy to reduce perioperative complications.

The incidence rates of adverse events secondary to any operation are a well-known problem in any surgical field. One outstanding example of such adverse events is postoperative pain. Thus, the incidence of acute postoperative pain following any surgical procedure and its treatment are central issues for every surgeon. In the times of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs, acute pain therapy became an increasingly well investigated and accepted aspect in almost all surgical subspecialties. However, if it comes to the reduction of postoperative complications, in the actual context of postoperative pain, surgeons tend to focus on the operative process rather than on the perioperative procedures. Undoubtedly, postoperative pain became an important factor with regard to the quality of surgical care: both, the extent and the quality of the surgical procedure and the extent and the quality of the analgesic technique are decisive issues for a successful pain management. There is growing evidence that supports the role of acute pain therapy in reducing postoperative morbidity, and it has been demonstrated that high pain scores postoperatively may contribute to a complicated postoperative course. This overview comprises the current knowledge on the role of acute pain therapy with regard to the occurrence of postoperative complications. Most of the knowledge is derived from studies that primarily focus on the type and quality of postoperative pain therapy in relation to specific surgical procedures and only secondary on complications. As far as existent, data that report on the recovery period after surgery, on the rehabilitation status, on perioperative morbidity, on the development of chronic pain after surgery, and on possible solutions of the latter problem with the institution of transitional pain services will be presented.

[Acute Pain Therapy in Appendectomy]. / Akutschmerztherapie bei Appendektomie.

The acute pain therapy in the setting of conventional or laparoscopic appendectomy has to be initiated by the surgeon. The success of acute pain therapy holds a direct relevance for quality of life, morbidity, chronification of pain, and economic aspects. A written consent between participating occupational groups and medical faculties based on existing guidelines is a crucial prerequisite for a well-functioning acute pain therapy. An adequately informed patient is able to actively take part in the process of his acute pain therapy. He becomes "part of the team". An efficient acute pain therapy always consists of a combination of non-medical procedures, technical operative aspects, and medical procedures.

Long-term benefits of Roux-en-Y pouch reconstruction after total gastrectomy: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Roux-en-Y reconstruction with and without jejunal pouch was compared in a randomized controlled trial to identify the optimal reconstruction procedure in terms of quality of life. BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials comparing techniques of reconstruction after total gastrectomy have shown controversial results. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight patients with gastric cancer were intraoperatively randomized for Roux-en-Y reconstruction with pouch (n = 71) or without pouch (n = 67) after gastrectomy and stratified into curative or palliative resection. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. Body weight and quality of life were determined every 6 months with a follow-up of up to 12 years. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable for age, sex, incidence of concomitant disease, and staging. There were no differences in operative time, postoperative complications, and mortality. Short- and long-term weight loss was similar in both groups. In the first postoperative year, there were no benefits of pouch reconstruction in terms of quality of life, independent of the resection status. In the third, fourth, and fifth year after surgery quality of life was significantly improved for patients with a pouch. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y pouch reconstruction after gastrectomy is simple to perform and safe. Long-term survivors benefit from pouch reconstruction. Therefore, a pouch is recommended for patients with a good prognosis.

Gastric bilirubin monitoring to assess duodenogastric reflux.

Duodenogastric reflux (DGR) was assessed with 24-hour gastric bilirubin monitoring in 345 patients (219 men; 49 +/- 13 years) with foregut symptoms and 41 healthy subjects (24 men, 28 +/- 5 years). Bilirubin exposure was measured as percent time above absorbance level 0.25 and excessive DGR was defined above the 95th percentile of normal values (>24.8%). DGR was highest following Billroth II gastric resection (60 +/- 24%, N = 15). Patients after cholecystectomy (28 +/- 25%, N = 25), patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (24 +/- 24%, N = 199), and patients with nonulcer dyspepsia (23 +/- 21%, N = 61) had a significantly higher exposure to DGR than healthy subjects (7 +/- 8%, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, gastric bilirubin monitoring is useful for the assessment of DGR specifically in symptomatic patients following gastric resection. Increased amounts of DGR may further be of clinical importance in patients with reflux disease or nonulcer dyspepsia and following cholecystectomy.