Evaluation of analgesic requirements and postoperative recovery after radical retropubic prostatectomy using long-acting spinal anesthesia - 18/08/11

Abstract |
Objectives |
To analyze the postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, and convalescence of patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) under spinal anesthesia using long-acting morphine sulfate as preemptive analgesia.
Methods |
A total of 103 consecutive men underwent RRP by a single surgeon. The time to tolerate oral fluids, time to unassisted ambulation, postoperative pain levels (visual analog pain score of 0 to 10), and analgesic requirements expressed in morphine equivalents were evaluated. Baseline patient characteristics and intraoperative factors (operating room time, blood loss) were also evaluated.
Results |
The mean time to tolerate oral fluids and unassisted ambulation was 11.3 ± 7.6 hours and 20 ± 6 hours, respectively. The mean narcotic requirements were 7.4 ± 6.1 morphine equivalents before discharge and 28.5 ± 25.9 morphine equivalents in the first week after discharge. The mean visual analog pain score was 4.5 ± 2.1 at discharge and fell significantly to 1.5 ± 1.0 by the time of Foley catheter removal on postoperative day 7 or 8. The analgesic requirements after discharge correlated with the pain score at discharge (P = 0.016). The mean time to resumption of normal preoperative activities was 19.4 ± 9.4 days. Two patients developed postspinal anesthesia headache. No other complications attributable to the anesthetic occurred.
Conclusions |
RRP may be performed through a small modified Pfannenstiel incision under spinal anesthesia containing long-acting morphine with little postoperative pain, low narcotic requirements, and a short convalescence. A prospective, randomized study is needed to compare the early postoperative outcomes of RRP performed using general versus spinal anesthesia.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| This study was supported by the Jackson Memorial Hospital Foundation and Mel Dick. |
Vol 65 - N° 3
P. 509-512 - mars 2005 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
