Objective To systematically evaluate the effect of epidural analgesia on prognosis after intestinal surgery.
Methods Such databases as PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid and CNKI were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effects of epidural analgesia on prognosis after intestinal surgery published from 1985 to 2010. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed and the data was extracted according to the Cochrane Handbook, and then the meta-analyses were conducted by using RevMan 5.0 software.
Results Ten RCTs involving 506 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the patient controlled analgesia (PCA), the patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) significantly reduced the waiting time for having first flatus, first defecation, and the length of hospital stay (MD= –1.07, 95%CI –1.63 to –0.50; MD= –0.63, 95%CI –1.19 to –0.08; MD= –1.36, 95%CI –2.28 to –0.44; respectively), lowered the frequency of vomiting on the first and second day after operation (OR=0.33, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.82; OR=0.3, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.84; respectively), and obviously declined the visual analog scale (VAS) scores of rest pain on the first, second and third day after operation (MD= –26.60, 95%CI –33.06 to –20.15; MD= –25.98, 95%CI –30.98 to –20.97; MD= –15.59, 95%CI –27.29 to –3.88; respectively), and the VAS scores of motion pain on the first, second and third day after operation (MD= –26.00, 95%CI –36.00 to –16.00; MD= –27.89, 95%CI –35.70 to –20.08; MD= –11.79, 95%CI –21.28 to –2.30; respectively). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of urinary tract infection, urinary retention, anastomotic leak and ileus.
Conclusion PCEA significantly reduces the waiting time for having first flatus and first feces, the length of hospital stay, the VAS scores of pain, and the incidence of postoperative vomiting.
Citation: XIA Haifa,REN Xuli,WANG Shaoshuang,LV Huangwei. Effects of Epidural Analgesia on Prognosis after Intestinal Surgery: A Meta-analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011, 11(8): 946-953. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20110158 Copy