Epidural analgesia versus intravenous analgesia after minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author:
Min Hee HEO
1
;
Ji Yeon KIM
;
Jung Hyeon KIM
;
Kyung Woo KIM
;
Sang Il LEE
;
Kyung-Tae KIM
;
Jang Su PARK
;
Won Joo CHOE
;
Jun Hyun KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Clinical Research Article
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2021;74(5):449-458
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Postoperative pain control after the minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) is essential, but there is a controversy about a better analgesic method between epidural and intravenous (IV) analgesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of epidural versus IV analgesia following MIRPE.
Methods:We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) dated up to 31st May 2021. The primary outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) of the weighted mean visual analog scale (VAS) after MIRPE. The secondary outcomes were postoperative nausea, operation time, total operating room time, and postoperative length of hospital stay.
Results:Four RCTs involving 243 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. The AUC of the weighted mean VAS was 343.62 in the epidural group and 375.24 in the IV group. The epidural group showed lower VAS than the IV group at 12 to 48 h after the surgery. Postoperative nausea, operation time and length of hospital stay was not different between two groups. The epidural group had a significantly longer total operating room time due to epidural catheter insertion time.
Conclusions:Epidural analgesia after the MIRPE had a better analgesic effect than IV analgesia. However, IV analgesia may also be a viable option, and physicians should wisely choose analgesic modalities after MIRPE.
