Search

Background Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. Methods This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1–3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0–3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0–3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects. Discussion In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019.

Purpose Many studies report on outcomes of analgesic therapy for (suspected) traumatic rib fractures. However, the literature is inconclusive and diverse regarding the management of pain and its effect on pain relief and associated complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes and compares reduction of pain for the different treatment modalities and as secondary outcome mortality during hospitalization, length of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay (ICU) and complications such as respiratory, cardiovascular, and/or analgesia-related complications, for four different types of analgesic therapy: epidural analgesia, intravenous analgesia, paravertebral blocks and intercostal blocks. Methods PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched to identify comparative studies investigating epidural, intravenous, paravertebral and intercostal interventions for traumatic rib fractures, without restriction for study type. The search strategy included keywords and MeSH or Emtree terms relating blunt chest trauma (including rib fractures), analgesic interventions, pain management and complications. Results A total of 19 papers met our inclusion criteria and were finally included in this systematic review. Significant differences were found in favor of epidural analgesia for the reduction of pain. No significant differences were observed between epidural analgesia, intravenous analgesia, paravertebral blocks and intercostal blocks, for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Results of this study show that epidural analgesia provides better pain relief than the other modalities. No differences were observed for secondary endpoints like length of ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation or pulmonary complications. However, the quality of the available evidence is low, and therefore, preclude strong recommendations.

SUMMARY Adequate postoperative pain management is essential to facilitate uneventful recovery after esophagectomy. Although epidural analgesia is the gold standard, it is not satisfactory in all patients. The aim of this study is to describe the efficacy and complication profile of epidural analgesia after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). A total of 108 patients who underwent a robot-assisted (McKeown) MIE for esophageal cancer were included from a single center prospective database (2012–2015). The number of patients that could receive epidural analgesia, the sensory block range per day, the number of epidural top-ups, the need for escape pain mediation (i.e. intravenous opioids), the highest pain score per day (numeric rating scale: 0–10), and epidural-related complications were assessed until postoperative day (POD) 4. Epidural catheter placement was achieved in 101 patients (94%). A complete sensory block was found in 49% (POD1), 42% (POD 2), 20% (POD3), and 30% (POD4) of patients. An epidural top-up was performed in 26 patients (24%), which was successful in 22 patients. Escape pain medication in the form of intravenous opioids was given at least once in 49 out of 108 patients (45%) on POD 1, 2, 3, or 4. Overall median highest pain scores on the corresponding days were 2.0 (range: 0–10), 3.5 (range: 0–9), 3.0 (range: 0–8), and 4.0 (range: 0–9). Epidural related complications occurred in 20 patients (19%) and included catheter problems (n = 11), hypotension (n = 6), bradypnea (n = 2), and reversible tingling in the legs (n = 1). In conclusion, in this study epidural analgesia was insufficient and escape pain medication was necessary in nearly half of patients undergoing MIE.

Background Major surgery is associated with negative postoperative outcomes such as complications and delayed or poor recovery. Multimodal prehabilitation can help to reduce the negative effects of major surgery. Offering prehabilitation by means of mobile health (mHealth) could be an effective new approach. Objective The objectives of this pilot study were to (1) evaluate the usability of the Be Prepared mHealth app prototype for people undergoing major surgery, (2) explore whether the app was capable of bringing about a change in risk behaviors, and (3) estimate a preliminary effect of the app on functional recovery after major surgery. Methods A mixed-methods pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in two Dutch academic hospitals. In total, 86 people undergoing major surgery participated. Participants in the intervention group received access to the Be Prepared app, a smartphone app using behavior change techniques to address risk behavior prior to surgery. Both groups received care as usual. Usability (System Usability Scale), change in risk behaviors 3 days prior to surgery, and functional recovery 30 days after discharge from hospital (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical functioning 8-item short form) were assessed using online questionnaires. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multivariable linear regression. Semistructured interviews about the usability of the app were conducted with 12 participants in the intervention group. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Results Seventy-nine people—40 in the intervention group and 39 in the control group—were available for further analysis. Participants had a median age of 61 (interquartile range 51.0-68.0) years. The System Usability Scale showed that patients considered the Be Prepared app to have acceptable usability (mean 68.2 [SD 18.4]). Interviews supported the usability of the app. The major point of improvement identified was further personalization of the app. Compared with the control group, the intervention group showed an increase in self-reported physical activity and muscle strengthening activities prior to surgery. Also, 2 of 2 frequent alcohol users in the intervention group versus 1 of 9 in the control group drank less alcohol in the run-up to surgery. No difference was found in change of smoking cessation. Between-group analysis showed no meaningful differences in functional recovery after correction for baseline values (β=–2.4 [95% CI –5.9 to 1.1]). Conclusions The Be Prepared app prototype shows potential in terms of usability and changing risk behavior prior to major surgery. No preliminary effect of the app on functional recovery was found. Points of improvement have been identified with which the app and future research can be optimized. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Registry NL8623; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8623

Effective pain management after esophagectomy is essential for patient comfort, early recovery, low surgical morbidity, and short hospitalization. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the best pain management modality focusing on the balance between benefits and risks. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to identify all studies investigating different pain management modalities after esophagectomy in relation to primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores at 24 and 48 hours, technical failure, and opioid consumption), and secondary outcomes (pulmonary complications, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, urinary retention, and length of hospital stay). Ten studies investigating systemic, epidural, intrathecal, intrapleural and paravertebral analgesia involving 891 patients following esophagectomy were included. No significant differences were found in postoperative pain scores between systemic and epidural analgesia at 24 (mean difference (MD) 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47-2.24) and 48 hours (MD 0.15; 95%CI -0.60-0.91), nor described for systemic and other regional analgesia. Also, no significant differences in pulmonary complication rates were identified between systemic and epidural analgesia (relative risk (RR) 1.69; 95%CI 0.86-3.29), or between systemic and paravertebral analgesia (RR 1.49; 95%CI 0.31-7.12). Technical failure ranged from 17% to 22% for epidural analgesia. Sample sizes were too small to draw inferences on opioid consumption, the risk of nausea and vomiting, hypotension, urinary retention, and length of hospital stay when comparing the different pain management modalities including systemic, epidural, intrathecal, intrapleural, and paravertebral analgesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows no differences in postoperative pain scores or pulmonary complications after esophagectomy between systemic and epidural analgesia, and between systemic and paravertebral analgesia. Further randomized controlled trails are warranted to determine the optimal pain management modality after esophagectomy.

Tumor vaccine development aimed at stimulating the cellular immune response focuses mainly on MHC class I molecules. This is not surprising since most tumors do not express MHC class II or CD1 molecules. Nevertheless, the most successful targets for cancer immunotherapy, leukemia and melanoma, often do express MHC class II molecules, which leaves no obvious reason to ignore MHC class II molecules as a mediator in anticancer immune therapy. We review the current state of knowledge on the process of MHC class II-restricted antigen presentation and subsequently discuss the consequences of MHC class II expression on tumor surveillance and the induction of an efficient MHC class II mediated antitumor response in vivo and after vaccination.