Epidural Versus Paravertebral Nerve Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Open Liver Resection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although many studies have found no difference between thoracic epidural block and unilateral thoracic paravertebral block after thoracotomy, no previous studies have compared epidural block with bilateral thoracic paravertebral block (bTPVB) in patients undergoing open liver resection. We aimed to investigate whether there was a significant analgesic advantage of thoracic epidural over bTPVB after liver resection. METHODS: This randomized, prospective, open-label study included adult patients undergoing elective open liver resection. Patients were randomized to receive either thoracic epidural block or bTPVB, through which ropivacaine (0.2%) was infused for 3 days. The primary outcome was pain Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) score (0-10) at rest and with postoperative incentive spirometry. Secondary outcomes included VRS at rest, inspired volumes during incentive spirometry, patient-controlled analgesia hydromorphone utilization, measures of hemodynamic stability, and postoperative bowel function. RESULTS: Eighty patients completed the study and received thoracic epidural block (n = 41) or bTPVBs (n = 39). No catheter-related complications were noted. The primary outcome, pain (VRS) with incentive spirometry, was significantly lower in the epidural group (epidural vs bTPVB, mean [SD]) (4.5 [2.7] vs 5.4 [2.7] at 24 hours postoperatively, and 3.2 [2.1] vs 4.6 [2.4] at 48 hours postoperatively). Maximal inspired volumes at 24 hours postoperatively (917 [379] vs 1042 [468] mL) and cumulative utilization of patient-controlled analgesia hydromorphone during the first 48 hours postoperatively (10.7 [7.9] vs 13.6 [8.5] mg) were not significantly different between groups. Decrease in mean arterial pressure from baseline at 24 hours postoperatively was greater for the epidural group (-12.6 [15.8] vs -3.8 [16.2]; P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a modest analgesic advantage of thoracic epidural over bTPVBs for patients after open liver resection.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis of 610 patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. The objective of this manuscript was to perform a metaanalysis comparing outcomes of LLR with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatic mCRC, and to identify which patients were suitable candidates for LLR. STUDY DESIGN: A PubMed search identified 2,122 articles. When filtered for case-matched articles comparing LLR with OLR for mCRC, 8 articles were identified consisting of 610 patients (242 LLR, 368 OLR). A random effects metaanalysis was performed. RESULTS: The 2 groups were well-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, number of metastases, extent of major hepatectomy, and use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. The mean number of metastases in the LLR and OLR groups were 1.4 and 1.5, respectively (P = .14). Estimated blood loss was less in LLR group (262 vs 385 mL; P = .049). Transfusion rate was significantly less in LLR group (9.9 vs 19.8%; P = .004). There was no difference in operative time (248.7 vs 262.8 min; P = .85). Length of stay (LOS) was less in the LLR group (6.5 vs 8.8 days; P = .007). The overall complication rate was less in LLR group (20.3% vs 33.2%; P = .03). Importantly, there was no difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) rates. CONCLUSION: In carefully selected patients with limited mCRC (1 or 2 tumors), LLR provides marked perioperative benefits without compromising oncologic outcomes or long-term survival. Specifically, LLR offers decreased blood loss, LOS, and overall complication rates with comparable 5-year OS and DFS.