Background
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia.

Objectives
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief.

Search methods
We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles.

Selection criteria
We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events.

Main results
Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.

Authors' conclusions
Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus non‐patient controlled opioid analgesia for postoperative pain

Background
Intravenous patient‐controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient‐controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra‐abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.

/pdf/epidural-analgesia-versus-patient-controlled-intravenous-9pp2dg985j.pdf

Epidural analgesia versus patient‐controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra‐abdominal surgery in adults

Patient-controlled versus scheduled, nurse-administered analgesia following vaginal reconstructive surgery: a randomized trial.

Postoperative ileus (POI) is a temporary impairment of gastrointestinal (GI) function that follows surgery, especially abdominal laparotomy. The duration of POI is variable, and prolonged POI can delay return to normal function for affected patients. Prolonged POI is associated with increased hospital costs and length of hospital stay. Because no consensus management strategies exist, there is clearly an unmet medical need for effective therapies such as peripherally acting muopioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonists to accelerate GI recovery.

The Impact of Postoperative Ileus and Emerging Therapies

Background Four visual analog scales were constructed to assess sensory and affective components of operative pain. The Surgical Pain Scales (SPS) measure pain while at rest, pain during normal activities, pain during work or exercise, and pain unpleasantness. Study design Longitudinal data from 2,164 patients in a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open hernia repair established the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the SPS. Correlations and t-tests were used to determine their psychometric properties compared with the SF-36 health status instrument. Results Intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.95 for the sensory scales and 0.94 for the unpleasantness rating confirmed that the SPS produced reliable measurements. Correlations ranging from 0.44 to 0.60 between the visual analog scales and the bodily pain dimension on the SF-36 and significant differences between SPS levels for patients requiring more and less time to resume normal activities (p≤0.015 to p≤0.002) supported the validity of the scales. Clinical responsiveness was demonstrated by a 33.5-mm reduction (standard error=1.4 mm) in the mean rating on a 150-mm scale measuring pain during normal activities for patients reporting postoperative improvement on the bodily pain dimension (p≤0.0001). Conclusions The Surgical Pain Scales demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in this study population. The SPS can be used to compare pain levels between groups at a single point in time or to track change for individual patients over time or after operations. Individualized pain management interventions can be tailored based on the sensory and effective ratings.

Visual Analog Scales for Assessing Surgical Pain

This study was conducted in order to investigate the advantages and limitations of four analgesic modalities: a) epidural morphine; b) intravenous morphine; c) patient controlled intravenous morphine (patient-controlled analgesia); and d) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Eighty patients undergoing major abdominal surgical procedures were prospectively and randomly treated with one of the above-mentioned analgesic methods. Evaluation of pain perception was done using the visual analogue pain score and the simple descriptive scale 4 hours after the procedure, in the early morning on postoperative day 1 and in the afternoon on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. The need for supplementary analgesia and the onset of complications, if any, were also evaluated for each patient. Patient-controlled intravenous morphine yielded the best analgesic effect over the entire period. Epidural morphine was more effective in the very early postoperative period compared to modalities (b) and (d). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, on the other hand, were more effective on the later postoperative days. None of the patients in group C needed supplementary analgesia, as against 20% in group A, 55% in group B and 40% in group D. Patients with hypochondriasis scores > 70 or depression scores > 70 required supplementation of analgesia more often. Morphine proved to be the drug of choice. Drug titration may be modulated in relation to the psychological characteristics of the patient. The best drug titration modality, in fact, is patient-controlled analgesia.

A prospective randomized clinical trial on pain control after major abdominal surgery.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Mariani L

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

A prospective randomized clinical trial on pain control after major abdominal surgery.