OP063 Comparison of analgesic quality and incidence of adverse effects between epidural analgesia and continuous incisional infusion in planned abdominal laparotomy

<h3></h3> <b>Please confirm that an ethics committee approval has been applied for or granted:</b> Not relevant <h3>Background and Aims</h3> Epidural analgesia is traditionally used for postoperative pain control after abdominal laparotomy, but continuous incisional infusion is being considered as a comparable alternative with potentially fewer side effects. This study aimed to determine if incisional catheters provide equivalent analgesia to epidurals and if they are associated with fewer adverse effects. <h3>Methods</h3> A prospective observational study included 498 patients from January 1, 2022, to January 31, 2024, with 390 using epidural catheters (Epi) and 108 using incisional catheters (Inc). Analgesic effectiveness was measured using EVA scores, QoR15, SCQIPP, and incidence of adverse effects. Data analysis included Student’s t-test for continuous variables and chi-square for discrete variables, with normal distribution confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilks test. <h3>Results</h3> Results showed that epidural catheters provided superior analgesia in the first two hours postoperatively (EVA 1-2 hours: 4.22±2.49 in Inc, 1.54±1.13 in Epi, p&lt;0.05), but pain perception equalized at 24 and 48 hours (EVA 24h: 2.79±1.84 in Inc, 2.59±1.86 in Epi; EVA 48h: 1.7±1.34 in Inc, 1.57±1.26 in Epi, p&gt;0.05). There were no significant differences in QoR15 scores at 24 and 48 hours or SCQIPP scores at discharge. Incisional catheters were associated with significantly fewer adverse effects such as nausea, motor block, and paresthesias, but there were no differences in the incidence of hypotension or urinary retention. <h3>Conclusions</h3> In conclusion, while epidural analgesia provides better immediate pain relief, incisional catheters offer similar analgesic quality after the first two hours and result in fewer adverse effects, making them a viable alternative for postoperative pain management.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-esra.62
Primary Topic
Anesthesia and Pain Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

OP063 Comparison of analgesic quality and incidence of adverse effects between epidural analgesia and continuous incisional infusion in planned abdominal laparotomy

Ignacio Ledesma, Carlos Delgado Navarro, José De Andrés Ibáñez, Victor Fibla Antolí et al.
Anesthesia and Pain Management
article

OP063 Comparison of analgesic quality and incidence of adverse effects between epidural analgesia and continuous incisional infusion in planned abdominal laparotomy

Ignacio Ledesma, Carlos Delgado Navarro, José De Andrés Ibáñez, Victor Fibla Antolí, Pablo Giner Martín, Javier Jesús Pérez Rey
article en

Abstract

<h3></h3> <b>Please confirm that an ethics committee approval has been applied for or granted:</b> Not relevant <h3>Background and Aims</h3> Epidural analgesia is traditionally used for postoperative pain control after abdominal laparotomy, but continuous incisional infusion is being considered as a comparable alternative with potentially fewer side effects. This study aimed to determine if incisional catheters provide equivalent analgesia to epidurals and if they are associated with fewer adverse effects. <h3>Methods</h3> A prospective observational study included 498 patients from January 1, 2022, to January 31, 2024, with 390 using epidural catheters (Epi) and 108 using incisional catheters (Inc). Analgesic effectiveness was measured using EVA scores, QoR15, SCQIPP, and incidence of adverse effects. Data analysis included Student’s t-test for continuous variables and chi-square for discrete variables, with normal distribution confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilks test. <h3>Results</h3> Results showed that epidural catheters provided superior analgesia in the first two hours postoperatively (EVA 1-2 hours: 4.22±2.49 in Inc, 1.54±1.13 in Epi, p&lt;0.05), but pain perception equalized at 24 and 48 hours (EVA 24h: 2.79±1.84 in Inc, 2.59±1.86 in Epi; EVA 48h: 1.7±1.34 in Inc, 1.57±1.26 in Epi, p&gt;0.05). There were no significant differences in QoR15 scores at 24 and 48 hours or SCQIPP scores at discharge. Incisional catheters were associated with significantly fewer adverse effects such as nausea, motor block, and paresthesias, but there were no differences in the incidence of hypotension or urinary retention. <h3>Conclusions</h3> In conclusion, while epidural analgesia provides better immediate pain relief, incisional catheters offer similar analgesic quality after the first two hours and result in fewer adverse effects, making them a viable alternative for postoperative pain management.

Hospital General Universitario De Valencia (ES)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Anesthesia and Pain Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.