Continuous Epidural Versus Non-Epidural Pain Management After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Real-Life, High-Case-Load Center Experience.

Background/

Objectives

Esophagectomy is a key component of esophageal cancer treatment, with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) increasingly replacing open esophagectomy (OE). Effective postoperative pain management can be achieved through various analgesic modalities. This study compares the efficacy of thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) with non-TEA methods in managing postoperative pain following MIE.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on 110 patients who underwent MIE between 2018 and 2023. 1. TEA vs. 2. intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) alone vs. 3. transversus abdominis plane (TAP) catheter with PCA vs. 4. single-shot TAP block with paravertebral catheter (PVB) in combination with PCA were compared. The primary outcome was postoperative pain within the first 72 h, assessed using the numeric rating scale. Secondary outcomes included postoperative surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC)), patient satisfaction, and duration of induction and emergence, among others.

Results

The incidence of an NRS > 3 during movement was 47.1%, 51%, 60.1%, and 48.3% for TEA, PCA alone, TAP + PCA, and PVB + PCA, respectively. For pain at rest, the rates were 8.3%, 4.3%, 11.2%, and 5%, respectively. High surgical complication rates were observed across all groups (CDC IIIa-V 31.6% overall), with patient satisfaction similarly high, regardless of the analgesic modality used (85% satisfied or very satisfied). No differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed.

Conclusions

PVB combined with PCA offered analgesic efficacy and patient satisfaction comparable to TEA in managing postoperative pain following MIE.