Comparison of the effects of epidural and spinal anesthesia on analgesia and blood gases in neonates born by natural vaginal delivery: A clinical trial study

Introduction: One of the concerns of painless deliveries is the safety of neonates. This clinical trial study aimed to compare the effects of epidural and spinal anesthesia on the mortality rate of neonates. Methods: This clinical trial was conducted in Hamadan Hospital in Iran. Ninety women, ages 18 to 45, were randomly assigned to receive epidural or subdural anesthesia. Using a checklist, the following were collected: demographic information, midwifery, hemodynamic status, mothers' pain intensity, and analyses of the baby's umbilical cord blood. The data were analyzed by SPSS version 16 for statistical analysis. Twenty-two of the patients with spinal anesthesia and epidural anesthesia were excluded from the study. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gestational age, parity, and severity of pain before or after anesthesia. The hemodynamic status of the mothers before and during the first postoperative period was in the normal range, except that in the spinal group, a decrease in systolic blood pressure was observed in normal range compared with the epidural anesthesia group. In blood gas analysis, the mean pH, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2), and bicarbonate (HCO3) did not show significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). The only complications were acidosis and epidural anesthesia. Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, both spinal and epidural opioids have no adverse effects on the health of neonates. However, both spinal and epidural opioid are preferred due to fewer changes in the hemodynamic changes in mothers and in umbilical cord blood gas.

Optimal Timing of Removal of Epidural and Urethral Catheters to Avoid Postoperative Urinary Retention Undergoing Abdominal Surgery

Background/Aims: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is one of the most frequent complications of epidural anesthesia. This study aims to clarify risk factors of POUR and to estimate the appropriate timing of urethral catheter removal. Methods: Between September and December 2014, a retrospective cohort study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent epidural anesthesia and major abdominal surgery. To observe trends in incidence of POUR, we analyzed the order and interval of removal of epidural and urethral catheters using Cochran-Armitage trend test. Results: In this study, 40 patients were diagnosed with POUR (33.3%). Median removal of epidural catheters was 4 postoperative days in the POUR group and 3.5 postoperative days in the non-POUR group (p = 0.04). When the urethral catheter was removed before epidural catheter, incidence of POUR was comparatively greater (p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in surgical fields, operation approach, epidural catheter levels, or epidural opioid use. No patients had urinary tract infections. Conclusion: We demonstrated that removal of urethral catheter before epidural catheter contributed to increasing trends in incidence of POUR. The optimal order and interval of removal of epidural and urethral catheters should be considered to avoid POUR after abdominal surgery.

Edema caused by continuous epidural hydromorphone infusion: A case report and review of the literature

Background: Intraspinal drug delivery (IDD) therapy has been increasingly employed in patients with intractable, nonmalignant pain. Before implantation of permanent intraspinal pump, an intraspinal opioid screening trial is conducted to demonstrate the efficacy. The patient-controlled continuous epidural opioid infusion trail, performed in an outpatient setting, is widely accepted by many interventional pain specialists.Objective: To report a case of severe edema observed during the continuous epidural hydromorphone infusion trial.Case Report: An otherwise healthy 68-year-old lady with a 5-year history of severe low back pain and bilateral leg pain because of failed back surgery syndrome was referred to our clinic for IDD therapy.A tunneled lumbar epidural catheter was placed at L2- L3 with catheter tip advanced to L1 under fluoroscopic guidance. Satisfactory catheter placement was confirmed by epidurogram. The catheter was then tunneled subcutaneously and connected to a Microject™ patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pump (Codman, Raynham, MA). The pump was programmed to deliver hydromorphone (0.1 mg/ml) at basal rate of 0.3 ml/h. The bolus dose was 0.1 ml with a 60-minute lockout interval. The patient was instructed how to operate the infusion pump. During the following infusion trial, she reported satisfactory analgesia (>70 percent pain reduction) and was able to wean off her other systemic opioids. However, she developed diffuse edema and gained over 16 pounds during the 5-day infusion trial. Her edema finally resolved 3-4 days after termination of the epidural infusion.Conclusion: Edema may occur and persist during epidural hydromorphone infusion. This report represents the first case report, to the best of our knowledge, describing severe edema in a patient on continuous epidural hydromorphone administration during an outpatient epidural infusion trial.

Epidural haloperidol enhances epidural morphine analgesia: Three case reports

Epidural opioids provide significant postoperative analgesia; however, their use is often limited by side effects such as nausea and pruritus, or they require the addition of epidural local anesthetics with possible side effects of motor block and hypotension. Adjuncts to epidural opioid analgesia would benefit pain management. There is evidence that epidural butyrophenones may enhance opioid analgesics and reduce side effects. The authors present the first reported use of epidural haloperidol to enhance epidural morphine analgesia in three individuals. Pharmacodynamic interactions of haloperidol, which may explain its analgesic efficacy, are summarized.

Intractable pruritus during outpatient epidural hydromorphone infusion: A case report and a focused review of the literature

Background: Intraspinal drug delivery therapy has been increasingly used in patients with intractable, nonmalignant pain who have failed to respond to conventional treatment or cannot tolerate systemic opioid(s) due to adverse events. By infusing a small dose of an opioid analgesic directly into the cerebrospinal fluid, near opioid receptors, profound spinal analgesia can be obtained. Before the implantation of permanent intraspinal pump, a neuraxial opioid infusion trial is usually conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of neuraxial opioid for analgesia. Patient-controlled epidural opioid infusion trial, performed in an outpatient setting, is one of the approaches used to conduct such a trial.Objective: To report a case of severe pruritus observed during the continuous epidural hydromorphone infusion trial and to conduct a focused review of the literature.Case report: An otherwise healthy 56-year-old lady, with a 4-year history of severe low back pain and bilateral leg pain due to failed back surgery syndrome, was referred to our clinic for intraspinal drug delivery therapy. Following a preimplantation psychological evaluation confirming her candidacy, she consented to an outpatient patient-controlled continuous epidural hydromorphone trial. A tunneled lumbar epidural catheter was placed at L3-L4 with catheter tip advanced to L2 under fluoroscopic guidance. Satisfactory catheter placement was confirmed by epidurogram. The catheter was then tunneled subcutaneously and connected to a Microject™ patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pump (Codman, Raynham, MA). The pump was programmed to deliver hydromorphone 0.3 mL/h (0.06 mg, concentration 0.2 mg/mL) at basal rate of 0.3 mL/h, with bolus dose set at 0.2 mL (0.04 mg) and 30-minute lockout interval. The patient was instructed how to operate the infusion pump prior to discharging home. During the infusion trial, she reported satisfactory analgesia (>90 percent pain reduction) and was able to reduce her oral opioid dose by more than 80 percent. However, she developed severe, persistent itching, unresponsive to meticulous epidural infusion titration or various antipruritic treatments. Her pruritus remained severe and unabated until a few hours after the termination of the epidural hydromorphone infusion.Conclusion: Pruritus may occur and persist during epidural hydromorphone infusion. This report describes severe pruritus in a patient on epidural hydromorphone administration, in the setting of an outpatient infusion trial.

Differences in Epidural and Analgesic Use in Patients with Apparent Stage I Endometrial Cancer Treated by Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery: Results from the Randomised LACE Trial

Objectives. We compared postoperative analgesic requirements between women with early stage endometrial cancer treated by total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).Methods. 760 patients with apparent stage I endometrial cancer were treated in the international, multicentre, prospective randomised trial (LACE) by TAH (n=353) or TLH (n=407) (2005–2010). Epidural, opioid, and nonopioid analgesic requirements were collected until ten months after surgery.Results. Baseline demographics and analgesic use were comparable between treatment arms. TAH patients were more likely to receive epidural analgesia than TLH patients (33% versus 0.5%,P<0.001) during the early postoperative phase. Although opioid use was comparable in the TAH versus TLH groups during postoperative 0–2 days (99.7% versus 98.5%,P=0.09), a significantly higher proportion of TAH patients required opioids 3–5 days (70% versus 22%,P<0.0001), 6–14 days (35% versus 15%,P<0.0001), and 15–60 days (15% versus 9%,P=0.02) after surgery. Mean pain scores were significantly higher in the TAH versus TLH group one (2.48 versus 1.62,P<0.0001) and four weeks (0.89 versus 0.63,P=0.01) following surgery.Conclusion. Treatment of early stage endometrial cancer with TLH is associated with less frequent use of epidural, lower post-operative opioid requirements, and better pain scores than TAH.