Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Effective pain management in lumbar spine surgery is critical to enhancing postoperative recovery and minimizing complications. Preemptive analgesia, administered either intravenously or epidurally, has shown promise in controlling pain; however, limited data exist comparing the two routes directly to determine the optimal approach for lumbar procedures.</p> Purpose <p>To evaluate and compare pain control efficacy, recovery outcomes, and postoperative complications between IV and epidural preemptive analgesia routes in lumbar spine surgeries.</p> Methods <p>A prospective, double blinded study comparing the efficacy of intravenous (IV) and epidural preemptive analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery were divided into three groups based on the analgesia route: Epidural, IV and Control respectively. Pain scores, analgesic consumption, and recovery profiles were assessed postoperatively. Statistical analyses, including ANOVA and Chi-square tests, were used to evaluate differences in pain control and recovery outcomes between groups.</p> Results <p>VAS scores at 4, 8, 12, and 24&#xa0;h postoperatively were significantly different among groups (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001). Group 1 (epidural) reported scores of 5.13 ± 0.86, 4.97 ± 0.93, 3.23 ± 0.94, and 3.17 ± 0.91; Group 2 (IV): 6.79 ± 1.29, 5.07 ± 0.92, 3.79 ± 1.18, and 3.21 ± 0.94; Group 3 (control): 8.92 ± 0.84, 6.96 ± 0.84, 5.82 ± 0.81, and 5.55 ± 0.50. Time to first analgesic was 26.00 ± 9.77&#xa0;min (G1), 25.00 ± 9.82&#xa0;min (G2), and 10.41 ± 3.51&#xa0;min (G3) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001). Total 24-hour consumption: fentanyl– G1: 32.20 ± 4.99 mcg, G2: 30.90 ± 8.78, G3: 62.55 ± 12.34; paracetamol– 1.00 ± 0.00, 1.03 ± 0.19, 2.00 ± 0.00&#xa0;g; ketorolac– 50.00 ± 0.00, 51.72 ± 9.28, 100.00 ± 0.00&#xa0;mg; tramadol– 45.00 ± 15.26, 49.66 ± 16.58, 73.47 ± 15.08&#xa0;mg (all <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001).</p> Conclusion <p>This study fills a critical gap by directly comparing IV and epidural pre-emptive analgesia in lumbar spine surgery, providing insights for clinical decision-making. Findings suggest IV analgesia offers comparable pain control to epidural, presenting a safer alternative with fewer procedural risks. Results hold valuable implications for optimizing perioperative care.</p> Level of evidence <p>Level IV.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Beyond the incision”: A case-control study on IV and epidural pre-emptive analgesia in lumbar spine surgery

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月14日

查看全文
  • Akhil Xavier Joseph,
  • Alia Vidyadhara,
  • Anjana Kashyap,
  • Abhishek Soni,
  • Balamurugan Thirugnanam,
  • Madhava Pai,
  • Vidyadhara S

摘要

Introduction

Effective pain management in lumbar spine surgery is critical to enhancing postoperative recovery and minimizing complications. Preemptive analgesia, administered either intravenously or epidurally, has shown promise in controlling pain; however, limited data exist comparing the two routes directly to determine the optimal approach for lumbar procedures.

Purpose

To evaluate and compare pain control efficacy, recovery outcomes, and postoperative complications between IV and epidural preemptive analgesia routes in lumbar spine surgeries.

Methods

A prospective, double blinded study comparing the efficacy of intravenous (IV) and epidural preemptive analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery were divided into three groups based on the analgesia route: Epidural, IV and Control respectively. Pain scores, analgesic consumption, and recovery profiles were assessed postoperatively. Statistical analyses, including ANOVA and Chi-square tests, were used to evaluate differences in pain control and recovery outcomes between groups.

Results

VAS scores at 4, 8, 12, and 24 h postoperatively were significantly different among groups (p < 0.0001). Group 1 (epidural) reported scores of 5.13 ± 0.86, 4.97 ± 0.93, 3.23 ± 0.94, and 3.17 ± 0.91; Group 2 (IV): 6.79 ± 1.29, 5.07 ± 0.92, 3.79 ± 1.18, and 3.21 ± 0.94; Group 3 (control): 8.92 ± 0.84, 6.96 ± 0.84, 5.82 ± 0.81, and 5.55 ± 0.50. Time to first analgesic was 26.00 ± 9.77 min (G1), 25.00 ± 9.82 min (G2), and 10.41 ± 3.51 min (G3) (p < 0.0001). Total 24-hour consumption: fentanyl– G1: 32.20 ± 4.99 mcg, G2: 30.90 ± 8.78, G3: 62.55 ± 12.34; paracetamol– 1.00 ± 0.00, 1.03 ± 0.19, 2.00 ± 0.00 g; ketorolac– 50.00 ± 0.00, 51.72 ± 9.28, 100.00 ± 0.00 mg; tramadol– 45.00 ± 15.26, 49.66 ± 16.58, 73.47 ± 15.08 mg (all p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

This study fills a critical gap by directly comparing IV and epidural pre-emptive analgesia in lumbar spine surgery, providing insights for clinical decision-making. Findings suggest IV analgesia offers comparable pain control to epidural, presenting a safer alternative with fewer procedural risks. Results hold valuable implications for optimizing perioperative care.

Level of evidence

Level IV.