Does regional anaesthesia improve outcome?

被引:1
作者
Fischer, Barrie [1 ]
机构
[1] Alexandra Hosp, Redditch Worcestershire Acute Hosp NHS Trust, Redditch, England
关键词
epidural; regional anaesthesia; regional analgesia; spinal; stress response; surgical outcome;
D O I
10.1016/j.mpaic.2009.08.008
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
There is conclusive evidence that regional anaesthesia techniques provide a quality of postoperative analgesia that is better than systemic opioid techniques. Continuous, effective postoperative analgesia is a worthwhile humanitarian aim in its own right, but regional anaesthesia also has the potential to improve the functional outcome from surgery. Proving that regional anaesthesia can influence the outcome of surgery is challenging; many studies are inconclusive with methodological weaknesses making comparison difficult and offering conflicting evidence. Large systematic reviews offer better evidence that regional anaesthesia improves outcome but effective analgesia alone will not markedly change surgical outcome. A postoperative lumbar epidural infusion will have no long-lasting benefits, once it is discontinued. Regional anaesthesia improves outcome most effectively only when incorporated into a structured postoperative rehabilitation and recovery programme, using the effective analgesia provided to achieve specific targets. These targets include early mobilization, active physiotherapy and early return to enteral nutrition. Other benefits of regional anaesthesia (reduced blood loss, lower risk of thromboembolic events and duration of ileus) can also contribute to a reduction in postoperative morbidity. However, unless the postoperative recovery programme is modified to incorporate these benefits into a patient's recovery, the full potential of regional anaesthesia's contribution to surgical outcome will not be realized.
引用
收藏
页码:545 / 548
页数:4
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]   The comparative effects of postoperative analgesic therapies on pulmonary outcome: Cumulative meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials [J].
Ballantyne, JC ;
Carr, DB ;
deFerranti, S ;
Suarez, T ;
Lau, J ;
Chalmers, TC ;
Angelillo, IF ;
Mosteller, F .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1998, 86 (03) :598-612
[2]   Do we need to justify epidural analgesia beyond pain relief? [J].
Barrington, Michael J. ;
Scott, David A. .
LANCET, 2008, 372 (9638) :514-516
[3]   Epidural analgesia reduces postoperative myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis [J].
Beattie, WS ;
Badner, NH ;
Choi, P .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2001, 93 (04) :853-858
[4]   Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia - A meta-analysis [J].
Block, BM ;
Liu, SS ;
Rowlingson, AJ ;
Cowan, AR ;
Cowan, JA ;
Wu, CL .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 290 (18) :2455-2463
[5]  
Jorgensen H, 2000, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V4
[6]   Multimodal strategies to improve surgical outcome [J].
Kehlet, H ;
Wilmore, DW .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2002, 183 (06) :630-641
[7]  
PARKER MJ, 2000, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V2
[8]   Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial [J].
Rigg, JRA ;
Jamrozik, K ;
Myles, PS ;
Silbert, BS ;
Peyton, PJ ;
Parsons, RW ;
Collins, KS .
LANCET, 2002, 359 (9314) :1276-1282
[9]   Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials [J].
Rodgers, A ;
Walker, N ;
Schug, S ;
McKee, A ;
Kehlet, H ;
van Zundert, A ;
Sage, D ;
Futter, M ;
Saville, G ;
Clark, T ;
MacMahon, S .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7275) :1493-1497
[10]   General versus regional anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery:: a meta-analysis of randomized trials [J].
Urwin, SC ;
Parker, MJ ;
Griffiths, R .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2000, 84 (04) :450-455