Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28913495›Full record

ArticleRomanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care2017

Improvement of recovery parameters using patient-controlled epidural analgesia after oncological surgery. A prospective, randomized single center study.

Armeana Olimpia Zgâia, Cosmin Ioan Lisencu, Alexandru Rogobete, Cătălin Vlad, Patriciu Achimaş-Cadariu, Gabriel Lazăr, Maximilian Muntean, Florin Ignat, Vlad Ormindean, Alexandru Irimie

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 65% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Armeana Olimpia ZgâiaDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Cosmin Ioan LisencuDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Alexandru RogobeteVictor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania.
Cătălin VladDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Patriciu Achimaş-CadariuDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Gabriel LazărDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Maximilian MunteanDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Florin IgnatDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Vlad OrmindeanIuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Alexandru IrimieDepartment of Surgery, Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Institute of Oncology Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta · ROIuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROVictor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) versus conventional opioid intravenous (IV) infusion after gastrointestinal cancer surgery regarding several post-surgery parameters of recovery.

methodsOne hundred and one patients were prospectively randomized to receive either thoracic/lumbar PCEA (PCEA group) or the standard analgesia technique used in our hospital, conventional IV infusion of morphine (IVMO group) after gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Pain intensity, time of mobilization and bowel function recovery were analyzed post-surgery. We also evaluated postoperative complications and length of Postoperative-Intermediate Intensive Care Unit (PI-ICU) stay and hospital stay.

resultsPain intensity was significantly less in the PCEA group in comparison with the IVMO Group at awakening 2, 8, 24, 30 and 48 hours after surgery (p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001, p = 0.043, p = 0.036, and p = 0.029, respectively). The latency to bedside mobilization, walking, first postoperative flatus and apparition of first stool were significantly faster (1.74 versus 2.26 days, 3.06 versus 3.78 days, 2.1 versus 3.14 days and 3.73 versus 5.28 days, respectively) in the PCEA group than in the IVMO group (p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001, and p <0.001, respectively). The incidence of nausea/vomiting was significantly lower in the PCEA group in comparison with the IVMO group (p = 0.001). Surgical-associated complications were significantly lower in the IVMO Group than in the PCEA group (p = 0.023). Length of PI-ICU stay was similar in the two groups but length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in PCEA group (4 versus 5 days p = 0.2849, 9 versus 12 days; p <0.001).

conclusionsPCEA provides better postoperative pain control, improves postoperative recovery after gastrointestinal cancer surgery compared with conventional intravenous morphine infusion. Therefore, it is more acceptable than conventional pain management.

Indexed as

gastrointestinal cancer surgerypatient-controlled epidural analgesiapostoperative analgesia

Identifiers

PMID28913495
PMCPMC5555424
OpenAlexW2955177084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.