Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Effect of preincisional epidural fentanyl and bupivacaine on postthoracotomy pain and pulmonary function.

BACKGROUND: This study attempts to determine whether preemptive thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) initiated before surgical incision would reduce the severity of acute post-thoracotomy pain, its effects on pulmonary function and stress response.

METHODS: Forty patients undergoing posterolateral thoracotomy received TEA either before (preoperative-TEA group) or after (postoperative-TEA group) surgery. Postoperative analgesia was maintained with epidural infusion of bupivacaine and fentanyl. Pain scores, pulmonary functions, arterial blood gases, plasma glucose, cortisol levels and epidural fentanyl consumption were compared for 48 hours after surgery.

RESULTS: The preoperative-TEA group demonstrated significantly reduced pain scores at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours at rest (p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.004, p = < 0.001, p = 0.006, and p = 0.001, respectively) and at 4, 8, 12, 24, 48 hours on coughing (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.004, respectively), and a significant reduction in epidural fentanyl consumption (208.6 +/- 49.3 mL, versus 260 +/- 28.8 mL, p = 0.001). The preoperative-TEA group showed significant improvement in pulmonary functions as compared with the postoperative-TEA group (p < 0.05), except forced expiratory volume in one second at 24 hours (p = 0.061) and peak expiratory flow rate at 48 hours (p = 0.188). The postoperative-TEA treated patients were more likely to have a higher arterial carbon dioxide pressure at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours (p = 0.017, p = 0.001, p = 0.003, p = 0.001), respectively. However, we could not demonstrate a statistical difference in oxygenation, cortisol, or glucose level.

CONCLUSIONS: Though preemptive TEA appeared to reduce the severity of acute pain, preserve pulmonary function, and reduce analgesic requirements, these statistically significant differences were not enough to conclude a clinical significant difference between groups.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app