Der Anaesthesist

, Volume 62, Issue 10, pp 797–807

Postoperative Schmerztherapie nach minimalinvasiver Hysterektomie

Thorakale Periduralanalgesie vs. intravenöse patientenkontrollierte Analgesie
  • M. Hensel
  • J. Frenzel
  • M. Späker
  • E. Keil
  • N. Reinhold
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Angesichts der Entwicklung immer neuer, gewebeschonender Operationsverfahren sollte das Schmerzmanagement prozedurenspezifisch, d. h. in Abhängigkeit von der Invasivität des jeweiligen operativen Eingriffs, durchgeführt werden. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde am Beispiel der minimalinvasiven Hysterektomie ein Vergleich zwischen der thorakalen Periduralanalgesie (PDA) und der intravenösen patientengesteuerten Opioidgabe (i.v.-PCA) angestellt.

Material und Methoden

Im Rahmen dieser prospektiven Beobachtungsstudie wurden Frauen mit einer benignen uterinen Erkrankung, die sich einer vaginalen Hysterektomie (VH) oder einer laparoskopisch-assistierten vaginalen Hysterektomie (LAVH) unterzogen haben, 2 Gruppen mit jeweils 30 Patientinnen zugeordnet (PDA- vs. i.v.-PCA-Gruppe).

Ergebnisse

Im Unterschied zur i.v.-PCA-Gruppe hatten die Patientinnen der PDA-Gruppe in der frühen postoperativen Phase weniger Schmerzen, PONV, Muskelzittern, Müdigkeitsgefühl und einen niedrigeren Schmerzmittelbedarf (p < 0,01). Die Aufenthaltsdauer im Aufwachraum war ebenfalls reduziert. Die Patientenbefragung zur Lebensqualität ergab 6 Wochen nach der Operation für beide Gruppen im Vergleich zum präoperativen Ausgangswert signifikante Verbesserungen hinsichtlich des allgemeinen Gesundheitszustands und im Hinblick auf die Gefühlslage (p < 0,01). Dieser Effekt war in der PDA-Gruppe ausgeprägter als in der i.v.-PCA-Gruppe (p < 0,05).

Schlussfolgerungen

Bei minimalinvasiven Verfahren zur Entfernung der Gebärmutter hat die PDA Vorteile gegenüber der i.v.-PCA. Insbesondere die Effektivität der Analgesie, der verminderte Analgetikabedarf und die reduzierte PONV-Rate tragen zum höheren Patientenkomfort bei. Dem stehen jedoch bei einigen Patienten Nachteile, wie Blasenfunktionsstörungen und Einschränkungen der Mobilität, gegenüber.

Background

In view of the development of innovative and non-traumatic surgical techniques, postoperative pain management should be carried out depending on the invasiveness of the intervention. In the present study two analgesic strategies were compared in patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy: epidural analgesia (EDA) and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (iv-PCA).

Material and methods

For this prospective case controlled study 60 women with benign uterine diseases undergoing vaginal hysterectomy (VH) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) were enrolled. Patients were divided for analysis into two groups (n = 30 each) according to the postoperative analgesic strategy (EDA group versus iv-PCA group). A matched-pair analysis was applied (matching criteria: risk assessment, surgeon and age of patient) to minimize the differences between both groups. Patients were evaluated with respect to the extent of pain determined by a numeric rating scale (NRS 0–10 scale), analgesic consumption, rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), mobilization from bed, oral intake of nutrition, complications, duration of stay in the recovery room as well as hospital stay and health-related quality of life (SF-36 Health Survey; collected before and 6 weeks after surgery).

Results

Laparoscopically assisted removal of the uterus was carried out in 22 women and by vaginal hysterectomy in 38 women. No significant differences between the study groups were seen in the duration of surgery (iv-PCA 58 ± 25 min versus EDA 60 ± 26 min). Demographic data of both groups as well as intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were comparable to a great extent. Compared to the iv-PCA group, women in the EDA group showed lower NRS values (p < 0.01): recovery room admission 4.7 ± 2.5 iv-PCA vs. 0.9 ± 1.3 EDA, recovery room discharge 3.8 ± 1.8 iv-PCA vs. 1.0 ± 1.2 EDA, day of surgery at 8 p.m. 5.0 ± 2.1 iv-PCA vs. 1.8 ± 2.3 EDA and first postoperative day at 8 a.m. 3.5 ± 1.7 iv-PCA vs. 1.9 ± 2.2 EDA. In addition, less PONV (iv-PCA 9/30 vs. EDA 1/30, p < 0.01), less shivering (iv-PCA 8/30 vs. EDA 2/30, p < 0.05), reduced fatigue (iv-PCA 26/30 vs. EDA 9/30, p < 0.05) and a lower consumption of analgesics were found. Average postoperative requirement for piritramide in the iv-PCA group was 7 mg (range 0–24 mg) on the day of surgery and 5 mg (0–39 mg) on the first postoperative day. In the EDA group no opiate medication was given postoperatively (p < 0.01). Duration of stay in the recovery room was shorter in the EDA group (71 ± 32 min vs. 50 ± 13 min, p < 0.05). Hospital stay was 5 days on average in both groups. There were no surgical complications or epidural catheter-related complications. Because of urinary retention catheterization of the bladder had to be made in 3 patients of the iv-PCA group and 13 patients of the EDA group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the possibility to take a shower postoperatively was restricted in the EDA group because the epidural catheter was in place and thereby hygiene concerns. Regarding the early oral nutritional intake as well as postoperative mobilization, no significant differences between groups were found. In comparison with the preoperative status, the results regarding health-related quality of life were significantly better for both groups after a follow-up of 6 weeks (p < 0.01); however, this effect was especially pronounced in the EDA group (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

To reduce the number of patients suffering from postoperative pain a procedure-specific pain management should be developed. The results of this study have shown that even in minimally invasive surgery, such as vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy there are some advantages for epidural analgesia compared to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. In particular reduced pain intensity, lower need for analgesics and reduced occurrence of PONV can lead to excellent patient comfort, fast recovery as well as positive effects on health-related quality of life. However, there are also some disadvantages such as an increased rate of urinary retention and restriction of mobility.

Schlüsselwörter

Analgetika Vaginal Laparoskopie Postoperative Komplikationen Lebensqualität 

Postoperative pain management after minimally invasive hysterectomy

Thoracic epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

Keywords

Analgesics Vaginal Laparoscopy Postoperative complications Quality of life 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Ali M, Winter DC, Hanly AM et al (2010) Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of thoracic epidural or patient-controlled opiate analgesia on perioperative quality of life. Br J Anaesth 104:292–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apfel CC, Korttila K, Abdalla M et al (2004) A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med 350:2441–2451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ et al (2003) Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis. JAMA 290:2455–2463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brack A, Böttiger BW, Schäfer M (2004) New insights in postoperative pain therapy. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 39:157–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandsborg B, Nikolajsen L, Kehlet H et al (2008) Chronic pain after hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 52:327–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breitfeld C, Peters J, Vockel T et al (2003) Emetic effects of morphine and piritramide. Br J Anaesth 91:218–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Briese V, Ulfig N, Mylonas I (2002) Die vaginale Hysterektomie. Gynakologe 35:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchanan FF, Myles PS, Cicuttini F (2011) Effect of sex on general anaesthesia and recovery. Br J Anaesth 106:832–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bullinger M, Kirchberger I, Ware J (1995) Der deutsche SF-36 Health Survey – Übersetzung und psychometrische Testung eines krankheitsübergreifenden Instruments zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität. Z Gesundheitswiss 1:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carli F, Trudel JL, Belliveau P (2001) The effect of intraoperative thoracic epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia on bowel function after colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 144:1083–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Catro-Alves LJ, De Azevedo VL, De Freitas Braga TF et al (2011) The effect of neuraxial versus general anesthesia techniques on postoperative quality of recovery and analgesia after abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Anesth Analg 113:1480–1486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi S, Mahon P, Awad IT (2012) Neuraxial anesthesia and bladder dysfunction in the perioperative period: a systemic review. Can J Anaesth 59:681–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dian D, Rack B, Schindlbeck C et al (2008) Endoskopische Hysterektomie. Gynakologe 41:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Döpfmer UR, Schenk MR, Kuscic S (2001) A randomized controlled double-blind trial comparing piritramide and morphine for analgesia after hysterectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 18:389–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerbershagen HJ, Aduckathil S, Wijck AJ van et al (2013) Pain intensity on the first day after surgery: a prospective cohort study comparing 179 surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 118:934–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hensel M, Stracke AS, Schenk M (2005) Schmerztherapie bei elektiven Kolonresektionen – „on-demand“, sytemische patientenkontrollierte Analgesie oder thorakale Periduralanalgesie? Chir Gastroenterol 21:324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hilbe JM (2005) A review of SYSTAT 11. Am Stat 59:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hornemann A, Thill M, Bohlmann MK et al (2008) Hysterektomie – vaginal, abdominal oder laparoskopisch assistiert? Gynakologe 41:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hwang JL, Seow KM, Tsai YL et al (2002) Comparative study of vaginal, laparoscopically assisted vaginal and abdominal hysterectomies for uterine myoma larger than 6 cm in diameter or uterus weighing at least 450 g: a prospective randomized study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:1132–1138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jahan S, Das TR, Mahmud N et al (2011) A comparative study among laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy: experience in a tertiary care hospital in Bangladesh. J Obstet Gynaecol 31:254–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jorgensen H, Wetterslev J, Moiniche S et al (2000) Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, PONV and pain after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001893PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Kehlet H et al (2013) Evidence-based postoperative pain management after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 15:146–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kehlet H, Holte K (2001) Effect of postoperative analgesia on surgical outcome. Br J Anaesth 87:62–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kongwattanakul K, Khampitak K (2012) Comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:89–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinée et al (2004) Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 18:879–897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu SS, Wu CL (2007) The effect of analgesic technique on postoperative patient-reported outcomes including analgesia: a systematic review. Anesth Analg 105:789–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moen V, Dahlgren N, Irestedt L (2004) Severe neurological complications after central neuraxial blockades in Sweden 1990–1999. Anesthesiology 101:950–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mueller A, Thiel F, Binder H et al (2004) Myome – Teil 1. Epidemiologie, Ätiologie und Klinik. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 64:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mueller A, Thiel F, Binder H et al (2004) Myome – Teil 2. Therapiemöglichkeiten. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 64:245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Munro MG, Parker WH (1993) A classification system for laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 82:624–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naik R, Jackson KS, Lopes A et al (2010) Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy – a randomized phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG 117:746–751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nies C, Celik I, Lorenz W et al (2001) Outcome of minimally invasive surgery. Qualitative analysis and evaluation of the clinical relevance of study variables by the patient and physician. Chirurg 72:19–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Panagiotou I, Mystakidou K (2012) Non-analgesic effects of opioids: opioid’s effects on sleep (including sleep apnea). Curr Pharm Des 18:6025–6033CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rama-Maceiras P, Ferreira TA, Molins N et al (2005) Less postoperative nausea and vomiting after propofol + remifentanil versus propofol + fentanyl anaesthesia during plastic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 49:305–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rein D, Schmidt T (2005) Laparoskopisch suprazervikale Hysterektomie (LASH). Gynakologe 38:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S et al (2000) Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomized trials. BMJ 321:1493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schermer H, Robel R (2006) Einsatz der laparoskopisch assistierten vaginalen Hysterektomie – eine Alternative zur abdominalen Hysterektomie? Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 67:9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sinclair DR, Chung F, Mezei G (1999) Can postoperative nausea and vomiting be predicted? Anesthesiology 91:109–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stang A, Merrill RM, Kuss O (2011) Hysterectomy in Germany. A DRG-based nationwide analysis, 2005–2006. Dtsch Arztebl Int 108:508–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thill M, Hornemann A, Fischer D et al (2008) Vaginale und abdominale Hysterektomie. Gynakologe 41:328–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wodlin N, Nilsson L, KjØlhede P et al (2011) The impact of mode of anaesthesia on postoperative recovery from fast-track abdominal hysterectomy: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 118:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wu CL, Cohen SR, Richman JM et al (2005) Efficacy of postoperative patient-controlled and continuous infusion epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids: a meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 103:1079–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Hensel
    • 1
  • J. Frenzel
    • 2
  • M. Späker
    • 2
  • E. Keil
    • 2
  • N. Reinhold
    • 2
  1. 1.Abteilung Anästhesiologie und IntensivmedizinPark-Klinik-WeissenseeBerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.Abteilung GynäkologiePark-Klinik-WeissenseeBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations