4.5 Article

Limited cryoablation reduces hospital stay and opioid consumption compared to thoracic epidural analgesia after minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 101, Issue 31, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029773

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative cryoanalgesia during MIRPE. The results of the retrospective analysis on 64 patients showed that cryoanalgesia group had lower pain scores, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower oral opioid consumption compared with the epidural analgesia group.
pain following minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) is a critical concern that leads to a prolonged hospital stay and high doses of opiates administered to the patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative cryoanalgesia (cryoablation of the intercostal nerves) during MIRPE. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 64 patients who underwent MIRPE and received cryoanalgesia or epidural analgesia between January 2019 and January 2021. The oral morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was used to calculate the dosage of opioid agents. The median age was 15 years (range, 4-33 years). The median postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (range, 2-6 days), with a median oral MME consumption of 45 mg (ranging from 0 to 1360 mg). Cryoanalgesia was performed in 38 patients, and epidural analgesia was administered to the remaining 26 patients. The cryoanalgesia group had a significantly lesser pain score, shorter postoperative hospital stay and lower oral MME consumption than the epidural analgesia group (5 vs 2; P < .001,3 days vs 5 days; P < .001, 19mg vs 634mg; P < .001). Cryoanalgesia appears to reduce postoperative hospital stay and opioid consumption compared with epidural analgesia. The outcomes of this study indicate that cryoanalgesia might be a safe and effective method for pain control following MIRPE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available