Post-operative Epidural Analgesia After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Fusion

Summary

Minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar decompression and fusion is a new procedure that aims to reduce post-operative pain, opioid consumption and related side effects, and length of hospital stay. Current research demonstrates a modest improvement in these areas beginning on the third post-operative day. MIS fusion, however, incurs significant cost as the average time of the procedure is approximately one third greater (from 148 minutes to 191 on average). Epidural analgesia has clearly demonstrated benefits for conventional open laminectomy. In order to fully maximize the benefits of an MIS technique, early post-operative analgesia/pain must be improved. The aim of this study is to combine two techniques to ultimately improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. This will be a randomized trial involving 32 patients undergoing MIS decompression and fusion with half the study group receiving active epidural and IV-PCA and the other half receiving epidural placebo and IV-PCA. The hypothesis is that epidural analgesia will reduce post-operative opioid consumption, improve pain scores, and decrease time to ambulation as well as discharge from hospital after MIS decompression and fusion.

Timeline

Start

2008-02

Primary completion

2011-07

Completion

2011-07

Publications

• Background Kundra P, Gurnani A, Bhattacharya A. Preemptive epidural morphine for postoperative pain relief after lumbar laminectomy. Anesth Analg. 1997 Jul;85(1):135-8. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199707000-00024.
• Background Schenk MR, Putzier M, Kugler B, Tohtz S, Voigt K, Schink T, Kox WJ, Spies C, Volk T. Postoperative analgesia after major spine surgery: patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2006 Nov;103(5):1311-7. doi: 10.1213/01.ane/0000247966.49492.72.
• Background Turner A, Lee J, Mitchell R, Berman J, Edge G, Fennelly M. The efficacy of surgically placed epidural catheters for analgesia after posterior spinal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2000 Apr;55(4):370-3. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01117.x.
• Background Rigg JR, Jamrozik K, Myles PS, Silbert BS, Peyton PJ, Parsons RW, Collins KS; MASTER Anaethesia Trial Study Group. Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1276-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08266-1.
• Background Gottschalk A, Freitag M, Tank S, Burmeister MA, Kreil S, Kothe R, Hansen-Algenstedt N, Weisner L, Staude HJ, Standl T. Quality of postoperative pain using an intraoperatively placed epidural catheter after major lumbar spinal surgery. Anesthesiology. 2004 Jul;101(1):175-80. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200407000-00027.
• Background Blumenthal S, Min K, Nadig M, Borgeat A. Double epidural catheter with ropivacaine versus intravenous morphine: a comparison for postoperative analgesia after scoliosis correction surgery. Anesthesiology. 2005 Jan;102(1):175-80. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200501000-00026.
• Background Ray CD, Bagley R. Indwelling epidural morphine for control of post-lumbar spinal surgery pain. Neurosurgery. 1983 Oct;13(4):388-93. doi: 10.1227/00006123-198310000-00007.
• Background Cohen BE, Hartman MB, Wade JT, Miller JS, Gilbert R, Chapman TM. Postoperative pain control after lumbar spine fusion. Patient-controlled analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Aug 15;22(16):1892-6; discussion 1896-7. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199708150-00016.
• Background Fisher CG, Belanger L, Gofton EG, Umedaly HS, Noonan VK, Abramson C, Wing PC, Brown J, Dvorak MF. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Apr 15;28(8):739-43.
• Background Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Mar 1;32(5):537-43. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000256473.49791.f4.
• Background Podichetty VK, Spears J, Isaacs RE, Booher J, Biscup RS. Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 May;19(3):161-6. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000188663.46391.73.
• Background Sandhu NS, Sidhu DS, Capan LM. The cost comparison of infraclavicular brachial plexus block by nerve stimulator and ultrasound guidance. Anesth Analg. 2004 Jan;98(1):267-268. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000077685.55641.7C. No abstract available.
• Background Brull R, McCartney CJ, Chan VW, El-Beheiry H. Neurological complications after regional anesthesia: contemporary estimates of risk. Anesth Analg. 2007 Apr;104(4):965-74. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000258740.17193.ec.
• Background Foley KM. The treatment of cancer pain. N Engl J Med. 1985 Jul 11;313(2):84-95. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198507113130205.
• Background Pollard CA. Preliminary validity study of the pain disability index. Percept Mot Skills. 1984 Dec;59(3):974. doi: 10.2466/pms.1984.59.3.974. No abstract available.
• Choi S, Rampersaud YR, Chan VW, Persaud O, Koshkin A, Tumber P, Brull R. The addition of epidural local anesthetic to systemic multimodal analgesia following lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2014 Apr;61(4):330-9. doi: 10.1007/s12630-014-0115-z. Epub 2014 Feb 12.

Drugs

Indications

No indication recorded.