Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the analgesic effects continuous epidural anesthesia and continuous rectus sheath block in patients undergoing gynecological cancer surgery: a non-inferiority randomized control trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 02 November 2021

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated the non-inferiority of continuous rectus sheath block to continuous epidural anesthesia for postoperative analgesia of gynecological cancer patients.

Methods

One hundred ASA-PS 1–2 patients via a median incision up to 5 cm above the navel were randomized into a continuous epidural anesthesia (CEA) group and a continuous rectus sheath block (CRSB) group. Following surgery, they have controlled with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) as basal postoperative analgesia. For patients in the CEA group were administered 0.25% levobupivacaine at 5 mg/h. Patients in the CRSB group, catheters were inserted on both sides of the posterior rectus sheath after surgery. They received 0.25% levobupivacaine on both sides at 7.5 mg/h. To determine whether CRSB is non-inferior to CEA in postoperative treatment, pain at rest and movement was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The non-inferiority margin of NRS difference between CRSB and CEA was set at 1.3 difference in means. The primary outcome was non-inferiority comparisons of NRS at rest/at movement after surgery, while the secondary outcome included the frequency of requesting IV-PCA and rescue drugs.

Results

NRS at rest in the CRSB group was not inferior to that in the CEA group. On the other hand, the NRS at movement at 4, 6, 8, 12 h following surgery in the CRSB group was inferior to CEA. There was no difference in the frequency of requesting IV-PCA and rescue drugs.

Conclusions

CRSB showed the non-inferiority to CEA for postoperative analgesia at rest, while CRSB was not non-inferior to CEA at movement in gynecological cancer patients. CRSB would be a substitute when CEA is contraindicated as a component of postoperative multimodal analgesia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marhofer P, Fritsch G. Safe performance of peripheral regional anaesthesia: the significance of ultrasound guidance. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:431–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Marhofer P, Greher M, Kapral S. Ultrasound guidance in regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:7–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin J, Nakamoto T, Yeh S. Ultrasound standard for obturator nerve block: the modified Taha’s approach. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:337–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bakshi S, Mapari A, Shylasree T. REctus Sheath block for postoperative analgesia in gynecological ONcology Surgery (RESONS): a randomized-controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63:1335–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yoshida T, Furutani K, Watanabe Y, Ohashi N, Baba H. Analgesic efficacy of bilateral continuous transversus abdominis plane blocks using an oblique subcostal approach in patients undergoing laparotomy for gynaecological cancer: a prospective, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117:812–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rao Kadam V, Van Wijk RM, Moran JL, Ganesh S, Kumar A, Sethi R, Williams P. Continuous transversus abdominis plane block vs intermittent bolus for analgesia after abdominal surgery: a randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2017;10:1705–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shido A, Imamachi N, Doi K, Sakura S, Saito Y. Continuous local anesthetic infusion through ultrasound-guided rectus sheath catheters. Can J Anaesth. 2010;57:1046–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dutton TJ, McGrath JS, Daugherty MO. Use of rectus sheath catheters for pain relief in patients undergoing major pelvic urological surgery. BJU Int. 2014;113:246–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gharaei H, Imani F, Almasi F, Solimani M. The effect of ultrasound-guided TAPB on pain management after total abdominal hysterectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2013;26:374–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cornish P, Deacon A. Rectus sheath catheters for continuous analgesia after upper abdominal surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77:84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bashandy GMN, Elkholy AHH. Reducing postoperative opioid consumption by adding an ultrasound-guided rectus sheath block to multimodal analgesia for abdominal cancer surgery with midline incision. Anesth Pain Med. 2014;4:e18263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tudor ECG, Yang W, Brown R, Mackey PM. Rectus sheath catheters provide equivalent analgesia to epidurals following laparotomy for colorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97:530–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Godden AR, Marshall MJ, Grice AS, Daniels IR. Ultrasonography guided rectus sheath catheters versus epidural analgesia for open colorectal cancer surgery in a single centre. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013;95:591–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Parsons BA, Aning J, Daugherty MO, McGrath JS. The use of rectus sheath catheters as an analgesic technique for patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Br J Med Surg Urol. 2010;4:24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Niraj G, Kelkar A, Jeyapalan I, Graff-Baker P, Williams O, Darbar A, Maheshwaran A, Powell R. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks with epidural analgesia following upper abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:465–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:633–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Thong ISK, Jensen MP, Miró J, Tan G. The validity of pain intensity measures: what do the NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R measure? Scand J Pain. 2018;18:99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ball L, Pellerano G, Corsi L, Giudici N, Pellegrino A, Cannata D, Santori G, Palombo D, Pelosi P, Gratarola A. Continuous epidural versus wound infusion plus single morphine bolus as postoperative analgesia in open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a randomized non-inferiority trial. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:1296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW, Altman DG. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA. 2012;308:2594–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta N, Kumar A, Harish R, Jain D, Swami A. Comparison of postoperative analgesia and opioid requirement with thoracic epidural vs. continuous rectus sheath infusion in midline incision laparotomies under general anaesthesia—a prospective randomised controlled study. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64:750–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Li A, Wei Z, Liu Y, Shi J, Ding H, Tang H, Zheng P, Gao Y, Feng S. Ropivacaine versus levobupivacaine in peripheral nerve block: a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e6551.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cho S, Kim YJ, Lee M, Woo JH, Lee HJ. Cut-off points between pain intensities of the postoperative pain using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21:29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. van Dijk JFM, Kappen TH, Schuurmans MJ, van Wijck AJM. The relation between patients’ NRS pain scores and their desire for additional opioids after surgery. Pain Pract. 2015;15:604–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Belavy D, Janda M, Baker J, Obermair A. Epidural analgesia is associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications in patients requiring an abdominal hysterectomy for early stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:423–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Horlocker TT, Vandermeuelen E, Kopp SL, Gogarten W, Leffert LR, Benzon HT. Regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine evidence-based guidelines (fourth edition). Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43:263–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Le-Wendling L. Analgesia for the trunk: a comparison of epidural, thoracic paravertebral and transversus abdominis plane blocks. London: IntechOpen; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kalogera E, Dowdy SC. Enhanced recovery pathway in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2016;43:551–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Webster K. Ultrasound guided rectus sheath block—analgesia for abdominal surger. Update Anaesth. 2010;26:12–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Blom JW, Vanderschoot JPM, Oostindiër MJ, Osanto S, Van der Meer FJM, Rosendaal FR. Incidence of venous thrombosis in a large cohort of 66,329 cancer patients: results of a record linkage study. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4:529–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Harrop-Griffiths W, Cook T, Gill H, Hill D, Ingram M, Makris M, Malhotra S, Nicholls B, Popat M, Swales H, Wood P. Regional anaesthesia and patients with abnormalities of coagulation: the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland The Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association Regional Anaesthesia UK. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:966–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Hideki Kuniyoshi, Yu Yamamoto, Shohei Kimura, Takako Terui & Yoichi Kase

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan

    Takanori Hiroe

  3. Department of Anesthesiology, Jikei Kashiwa Hospital, 163-1, Kashiwashita, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan

    Yoichi Kase

Authors
  1. Hideki Kuniyoshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shohei Kimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takanori Hiroe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takako Terui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yoichi Kase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HK: this author designed the study and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. YY: this author contributed to analysis and interpretation of data. SK: this author contributed to analysis and interpretation of data. TH: this author contributed to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript. TT: this author helped write and revise the manuscript. YK: this author contributed to data collection and interpretation and critically reviewed and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoichi Kase.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Clinical trial number and registry URL

UMIN000021255, https://www.umin.ac.jp.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuniyoshi, H., Yamamoto, Y., Kimura, S. et al. Comparison of the analgesic effects continuous epidural anesthesia and continuous rectus sheath block in patients undergoing gynecological cancer surgery: a non-inferiority randomized control trial. J Anesth 35, 663–670 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-021-02973-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-021-02973-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation