Original Article
Efficacy of subpleural continuous infusion of local anesthetics after thoracoscopic pulmonary resection for primary lung cancer compared to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia
Abstract
Background: This study compared the efficacy and side effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with those of a subpleural continuous infusion of local anesthetic (ON-Q system) in patients undergoing thoracoscopic pulmonary resection for primary lung cancer.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 66 patients who underwent thoracoscopic pulmonary resection for primary lung cancer from January 2014 to August 2015 (36 in the IV-PCA group and 30 in the ON-Q group). The numeric pain intensity scale (NPIS), additional IV injections for pain control, side effects, and early discontinuation of the pain control device were compared.
Results: There were no differences in the general characteristics of the two groups. The NPIS scores gradually decreased with time (P<0.001), but the two groups had differences in pattern of NPIS scores (P=0.111). There were no differences in the highest NPIS score during admission (4.75±2.35 vs. 5.27±1.87, P=0.334) or the number of additional IV injections for pain control in the same period (0.72±0.94 for IV-PCA vs. 0.83±0.65 for ON-Q; P=0.575). Side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and drowsiness were significantly more frequent with IV-PCA (36.1% vs. 10.0%, P=0.014), and early discontinuation of the pain control device was more frequent in the IV-PCA group (33.3% vs. 6.7%, P=0.008).
Conclusions: The ON-Q system was equivalent to the IV-PCA for postoperative pain control after thoracoscopic pulmonary resection for primary lung cancer, and it also had fewer effects and early discontinuations.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 66 patients who underwent thoracoscopic pulmonary resection for primary lung cancer from January 2014 to August 2015 (36 in the IV-PCA group and 30 in the ON-Q group). The numeric pain intensity scale (NPIS), additional IV injections for pain control, side effects, and early discontinuation of the pain control device were compared.
Results: There were no differences in the general characteristics of the two groups. The NPIS scores gradually decreased with time (P<0.001), but the two groups had differences in pattern of NPIS scores (P=0.111). There were no differences in the highest NPIS score during admission (4.75±2.35 vs. 5.27±1.87, P=0.334) or the number of additional IV injections for pain control in the same period (0.72±0.94 for IV-PCA vs. 0.83±0.65 for ON-Q; P=0.575). Side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and drowsiness were significantly more frequent with IV-PCA (36.1% vs. 10.0%, P=0.014), and early discontinuation of the pain control device was more frequent in the IV-PCA group (33.3% vs. 6.7%, P=0.008).
Conclusions: The ON-Q system was equivalent to the IV-PCA for postoperative pain control after thoracoscopic pulmonary resection for primary lung cancer, and it also had fewer effects and early discontinuations.
