ArticleEuropean journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care2023
Thoracic epidural analgesia vs. patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: An observational study.
Article in European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is an invasive technique with potential side effects but is widely used in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes in colorectal cancer surgery. The effects of TEA on postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS) or morbidity is still debated.
objectivesThe main objective was to evaluate the postoperative analgesic effectiveness of TEA compared with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and whether TEA contributes to enhanced recovery.
designA retrospective single-centre, observational study.
settingDutch tertiary-care university hospital. PATIENTS: All consecutive adult patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016, with ASA status I-IV, were included. Exclusion criteria were hypersensitivity to opioid or local anaesthetic substances, or the use of multiple secondary anaesthetic techniques.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome, postoperative pain assessed with a Numeric Rating Scale on postoperative days 1 to 3 inclusive. Secondary endpoints were LOS, the incidence of epidural related side effects, major complications and the 5-year survival rate. Using linear mixed models, pain scores were compared between patients who received TEA and PCIA.
resultsOf 422 enrolled patients, 110 (32%) received TEA and 234 (68%) PCIA. Patients in the TEA group had lower pain scores: estimated NRS difference at rest; -0.79; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.49;
conclusionsTEA in open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with moderately better postoperative pain control but does not affect LOS, postoperative morbidity, mortality nor long-term survival. The current clinical indication for TEA in colorectal surgery remains unchanged.
trial registrationInternational clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN11426678; retrospectively registered 26 February 2021.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.