Local Versus Epidural Anesthesia in Fast-Track Abdominal Aortic Surgery

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate a possible alternative to epidural anesthesia/analgesia. The authors compared thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia with continuous wound infiltration anesthesia/analgesia in patients scheduled for mini-invasive abdominal aortic surgery in a fast-track setting.DesignA prospective randomized study.SettingA university hospital.ParticipantsSixty patients undergoing fast-track abdominal aortic surgery.InterventionsThe authors compared thoracic epidural infusion (the PERI group) with continuous local wound infiltration (the LOC group) for anesthesia/analgesia. Pain scores, the resumption of oral feeding, the resumption of ambulation, the day of discharge, and postoperative complications in the immediate (ie, 30 days) and long-term periods (ie, 2 years) were evaluated.Measurements and Main ResultsPain scores were low in both groups. The intraoperative LOC group needed higher doses of anesthetic/analgesic drugs. The postoperative LOC group needed significantly higher doses of bupivacaine (3.9 ± 0.7 mL/h [PERI group] and 5.7 ± 1.3 mL/h [LOC group] on day 0 [p < 0.01]; 3.8 ± 0.8 mL/h [PERI group] and 5.3 ± 1 mL/h [LOC group] on day 1 [p < 0.01]). The parameters of postoperative recovery were comparable between the 2 groups in terms of the resumption of ambulation after surgery (within 3 hours), feeding (within 6 hours), the passage of stools (mean 2 days), and the median hospital stay (3 days). In the 2-year follow-up period, a difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of wound complications was not observed.ConclusionsThe results obtained showed good and similar pain control in the 2 groups, but the LOC group required higher doses of anesthetic/analgesic drugs. Parameters of the postoperative recovery were similar in both groups.