Next Article in Journal
RETRACTED: Choi et al. Validation of the CHA2DS2-VA Score (Excluding Female Sex) in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1823
Previous Article in Journal
“I Can’t Do without You”: Treatment Perspectives for Affective Dependence: A Scoping Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 21
10.3390/jcm12216771
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Pain in Colorectal Surgery: How Does It Occur and What Tools Do We Have for Treatment?

by
Robert Ivascu
1,2,
Madalina Dutu
1,2,*,
Alina Stanca
3,
Mihai Negutu
3,
Darius Morlova
4,
Costin Dutu
2 and
Dan Corneci
1,2
1
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, ‘Carol Davila’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
2
Central Military Emergency University Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila”, 010825 Bucharest, Romania
3
Elias University Emergency Hospital, 011461 Bucharest, Romania
4
Bagdasar Arseni Clinical Emergency Hospital, 041915 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(21), 6771; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12216771
Submission received: 10 September 2023 / Revised: 9 October 2023 / Accepted: 24 October 2023 / Published: 26 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Anesthesiology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pain is a complex entity with deleterious effects on the entire organism. Poorly controlled postoperative pain impacts the patient outcome, being associated with increased morbidity, inadequate quality of life and functional recovery. In the current surgical environment with less invasive surgical procedures increasingly being used and a trend towards rapid discharge home after surgery, we need to continuously re-evaluate analgesic strategies. We have performed a narrative review consisting of a description of the acute surgical pain anatomic pathways and the connection between pain and the surgical stress response followed by reviewing methods of multimodal analgesia in colorectal surgery found in recent literature data. We have described various regional analgesia techniques and drugs effective in pain treatment, emphasizing their advantages and concerns. We have also tried to identify present knowledge gaps requiring future research. Our review concludes that surgical pain has peculiarities that make its management complex, implying a consistent, multimodal approach aiming to block both peripheral and central pain pathways.

1. Introduction

According to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), pain is ‘An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage.’ Awareness of the high intensity of intraoperative surgical pain led to the birth of a new medical specialty: anesthesiology (from Ancient Greek roots ἀν- an—‘not’, αἴσθησις- aísthēsis-‘—‘sensation’, and ‘λογία- logia’—‘study’). Underestimation of acute postoperative pain contributes to chronic pain development with a permanently poor quality of life [1]. Surgical pain induces a profound physiologic neurohumoral response, the so-called “adaptive stress response”, which sometimes might exceed its protective role and becomes harmful. Choosing the anesthetic technique and perioperative analgesia equally implies taking into consideration patient factors and surgical procedure stress. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are increasingly utilized, altering analgesic requirements compared with open laparotomy [2].

2. Methods: Literature Search

We have conducted a computerized search in different databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase). We have included citations up to December 2022 using the primary search strategy: acute postoperative pain, colorectal surgery, pain assessment, acetaminophen, NSAIDs, ketamine, opioids, epidural anesthesia, peripheral nerve blocks, continuous wound infusion, local infiltration, and their associations. Data has been selected to include consensus conferences, comparative studies, guidelines, multicenter studies, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, large case series, original articles, narrative review articles and randomized controlled trials. Abstracts were screened first, then a full-text assessment of the articles was performed. Case reports were excluded. Finally, a narrative review was carried out.

3. Acute Pain after Surgery Pathways

Cortical representation of a pain stimulus implies a four-stage process (see Figure 1):
1. The first stage is transduction, meaning a stimulus’ conversion into action potential. Surgical trauma activates nociceptors through their direct mechanical, electrical or thermal stimulation, as well as through cellular destruction, with the secondary release of adenosine, protons, potassium, and bradykinin, which chemically activates the polymodal nociceptors. The antidromic substance P and glutamate released from the afferents of the nociceptive nerve fibers lead to the augmentation of inflammation. All these mechanisms contribute to peripheral nociceptor sensitization, causing allodynia (pain from nonpainful stimuli) and primary hyperalgesia (exaggerated pain from a painful stimulus) [3,4,5].
2. The second step is transmission, which is the conduction of the action potential through A δ (somatic parietal pain) and C (visceral pain) nerve fibers. The synapse between primary and secondary neurons takes place in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. At the synaptic level, the main mediator involved in pain transmission is glutamate, which stimulates receptors coupled with AMPA sodium channels [5]. Repetitively stimulating the secondary neurons increases the membrane density of AMPA receptors. Iterative stimulation leads to the expansion of the nervous afferent territory. Thus, secondary hyperalgesia occurs (amplification of the painful perception of stimulus coming from inside and outside the injured area) through the phenomenon of central sensitization [6,7].
Secondary neuron axons form the ascending tracts: spinothalamic, spinoreticular and spinohypotalamic connected to the hypothalamus, brainstem, limbic system, ascending activating reticulated system and periaqueductal gray substance. These connections take part in the neuroendocrine and vegetative pain response and give the affective/emotional characteristic to surgical pain.
3. The third stage is pain modulation. At present, two theories might explain the modulation phenomenon: the first one is based on the descending modulatory system activity (starting from the midbrain periaqueductal gray substance and receiving input from the hypothalamus, thalamus, limbic system, and cortex)—this system is activated by endogenous and exogenous opioids and makes synapses with the inhibitory interneurons from the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. The second one is gate-control theory: a mechanism in the spinal cord in which pain signals go up to the brain and are processed to accentuate or attenuate the possible perceived pain at the spinal cord itself.
4. The fourth stage is pain perception. The primary and secondary somatosensory cortex (pain location and duration), limbic system (affective/emotional pain component) and prefrontal cortex (anticipating pain by modeling past experiences) have been identified as regions associated with pain perception [8].

4. Pain and Surgical Stress Response

Pain is the main component of surgical stress, leading to the activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, with the subsequent increase in serum levels of cortisol, growth hormone and vasopressin, and to sympathetic nervous system activation, all components of the systemic stress response [9]. Cortisol is released very soon after the beginning of surgery with a peak secretion at 4–6 h and, depending on the extent of the surgery, can reach values up to four times higher than the basal ones [10]. High cortisol and glucagon serum levels and decreased insulin secretion caused by sympathetic stimulation lead to catabolic syndrome. Persistent hypercatabolism may lead to increased hospitalization and mortality. Hyperglycemia also increases the infection risk.
Untreated pain causes prolonged sympathetic stimulation which, in association with anemia and perioperative hypoxia, exposes patients with cardiac risk factors to postoperative myocardial injury/infarction (PMI) [11,12]. Data from a large retrospective cohort analysis published in 2020 by Turan et al. concluded that, among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, high time-weighted average pain scores within 72 h after surgery were significantly associated with greater risk of myocardial injury compared to lower pain scores [13].
Liberal perioperative crystalloid infusion and vasopressin release effects through renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system activation produce interstitial space expansion and postoperative edema. Hypoalbuminemia usually happens due to albumin distribution volume augmentation and increased capillary permeability with secondary escape of serum albumin into the interstitial space. The main consequence is interstitial edema, including at the bowel level, one of the causes of postoperative ileus and postoperative gastrointestinal tract dysfunction with an elevated risk of anastomotic leakage. In addition, manipulation of the bowel, increased sympathetic stimulation, opioid use and fasting are also contributors to the inhibition of gastrointestinal peristalsis [14]. Increased perioperative levels of catecholamine may be associated with pro-metastatic effects [15].
Higher levels of postoperative pain and pain distress can increase morbidity, prevent functional recovery, and reduce the quality of life. Furthermore, suboptimal postoperative analgesia is a risk factor for ongoing opioid use, opioid dependence and persistent post-surgical pain [16].

5. Methods to Manage Surgical Pain

The surgical stress response including its physiological derangements becomes a challenge to postoperative patients. The use of standardized enhanced recovery programs in combination with laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized clinical and patient-reported outcomes in elective colorectal surgery. Central to the success of enhanced recovery programs is optimal pain management [17]. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are increasingly utilized, altering analgesic requirements compared with open laparotomy, leading to a decline in the popularity of epidural anesthesia and increasing interest in intrathecal morphine and truncal nerve blocks [2]. There is a paucity of data identifying the ideal analgesic regimen in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and a lack of consensus on the optimal perioperative analgesia strategy in this cohort of patients [17].
The number of hospitalized patients with pre-existing opioid tolerance, chronic pain, or opioid use disorder (OUD) is also increasing, further challenging prescribers and straining healthcare resources [18]. These patients need customized care plans for perioperative analgesia.
Pain management in colorectal surgery requires multimodal analgesia utilizing complementary mechanisms to improve pain control with less high-risk drug exposure. This concept is based on pain prevention and remission through blocking nerve impulse transmission at different stations over the nervous system (as we have shown in the description of pain pathways). Multimodal analgesia has a variety of tools: regional analgesia (peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial blocks), pharmacological agents (e.g., acetaminophen and anti-inflammatories), neuropathic agents (e.g., gabapentinoids, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, corticosteroids, NMDA antagonists, and central alpha-adrenergic agonists), systemic anesthetics (e.g., intravenous lidocaine and inhaled anesthetics), physical therapy, cognitive/behavioral therapies, thermotherapies, and other nonpharmacologic therapies that are beyond the purpose of our review.

6. Techniques of Neuraxial and Regional Analgesia

Opioid-related side effects, opioid-sparing anesthesia promoted by enhanced recovery goals, and the opioid abuse epidemic emphasize the need for alternative, opioid-minimizing, multimodal analgesic strategies, including neuraxial (epidural/intrathecal) techniques, truncal nerve blocks, and lidocaine infusions [2].

6.1. Neuraxial Techniques

The spinal cord is central to the transmission of pain. Local anesthetic injection into the neuraxial space segmentally blocks nerve transmission of nociception to the brain [2]. Published two decades ago, the largest multicenter randomized control trial investigating the role of epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgery reported reductions in pain scores and respiratory complications in the epidural analgesia group, without additional morbidity or mortality benefits [19]. Since then, several systematic reviews provided consistent findings on the reduction in rest pain after major abdominal surgery, and non-conclusive evidence for a positive impact on dynamic pain [20,21,22].
According to ERAS protocols, thoracic T7-T10 level epidural anesthesia (TEA) is the gold standard for obtaining adequate analgesia in open colorectal surgery [23]. In a study published in 2017, TEA was at that point the most commonly used regional technique among ERAS protocols in 15 different healthcare facilities mostly located in North America and 1 in New Zealand [24]. Its use has proven advantages: prevention of intestinal mucosa degradation, metabolic status improvement by minimizing surgical stress, and mitigation of the postoperative ileus. Still, no mortality benefit associated with epidural analgesia use has been reported in most of the systematic reviews conducted. A large cohort study using the US National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (64,119 patients having received neuraxial or regional anesthesia) revealed significantly lower odds of several postoperative complications, especially respiratory complications, and decreased hospital length of stay, but not mortality [25].
The popularity of neuraxial techniques appears to be declining worldwide [26]. Possible technical complications (e.g., dislodgement, leakage, occlusion, nerve injury, and paraplegia) with consecutive analgesia failure and hemodynamic compromise requiring additional intravenous fluid therapy and vasopressor support, especially in elderly patients, might be reasons for epidural use restraint in colorectal surgery.
TEA does not exclude a multimodal approach, for example, in combination with intravenous acetaminophen. It seems to provide superior postoperative pain management compared with TEA alone [27].
What about TEA used in laparoscopic colorectal surgery? It is believed that the laparoscopic technique is less painful than the open technique, but that depends on how pain is managed. Results of a prospective cohort study assessing postoperative pain on 434 patients after elective colorectal surgery within the ERAS perioperative program concluded that patients undergoing minimally invasive colonic surgery experienced more pain on the day of surgery and less pain on postoperative days 2 and 3 vs. open colonic surgery; thus, patients having open colonic surgery would probably benefit from epidural analgesia for 3 days instead of 1 [28].
A multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study of variation in practice in perioperative analgesia strategies in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery (the LapCoGesic study) released in 2020 has demonstrated a steady movement away from the use of epidural analgesia in recent times, with a trend towards the use of patient-controlled analgesia and spinal diamorphine in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery [17]. Although epidural analgesia in laparoscopic colorectal surgery reduces early postoperative pain (24 h) [29], there are conflicting findings on side effects, time to return of bowel function, and hospital length of stay. A higher overall complication rate has been reported [30].
However, is TEA far superior to other regional anesthesia techniques? Analgesia obtained after TEA is superior to that obtained by continuous wound infiltration in laparoscopic surgery [31], but no difference has been noticed when comparing TEA to transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block [32].

6.2. Intrathecal Analgesia

Intrathecal morphine has a prolonged duration of action and higher potency. A clinically significant opioid-sparing effect on the first postoperative day has been consistently reported. Concerns regarding delayed respiratory depression have limited the widespread use of intrathecal morphine [33]. The recommended postoperative monitoring for intrathecal morphine is the same as that for patient-controlled analgesia of opiates. Comparing intrathecal morphine or diamorphine to intrathecal local anesthetic, or to systemic analgesia in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, lower pain scores and opioid consumption up to the third postoperative day in the intrathecal opioid group have been reported. Nausea similarly has affected both cohorts, and pruritus has disproportionately impacted the intrathecal opioid group [34,35,36]. Studies comparing intrathecal morphine with epidural analgesia reported a reduction in the incidence of hypotension and hospital length of stay with the use of intrathecal morphine; postoperative pain, limited to the first 24 h after surgery, was lower in those patients who received epidural analgesia [2]. Hydromorphine, buprenorphine, and diamorphine are alternative hydrophilic opioids that can be administered via the neuraxial route for pain management [37].

6.3. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block (TAP)

The context of the increasing prevalence of minimally invasive surgery and declining popularity of neuraxial techniques makes truncal blocks, and especially TAP, important analgesic tools in colorectal surgery. Viderman et al. performed a meta-analysis on TAP used in colorectal surgery, including 8 RCTs published before September 2021 involving 615 patients. The need for opioids and the intensity of pain at rest within 24 h after laparoscopic and combined (laparoscopic and open) surgeries were significantly lower in the TAP block group compared with the “no block” group; however, the effect of TAP block in reducing opioid requirements was more pronounced in the combined group (laparoscopic and open surgery). TAP block did not influence postoperative nausea and vomiting and length of hospital stay after laparoscopic and combined surgeries [38]. A recent review recommends subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks as a valid alternative for patients undergoing laparotomy in whom neuraxial blocks are contraindicated [39]. Epidural analgesia was compared with TAP in colorectal surgery in a systematic review published in 2021 including six randomized control trials. Functional recovery in the TAP group was found to be superior to epidural analgesia with a reduction in total opioid consumption, time to ambulate, urinary catheter time, and postoperative hypotension in the context of comparable pain control [40].

6.4. Rectus Sheath Block (RSB)

Rectus sheath block (RSB) is an anesthetic technique first described in 1899 but only recently used. Literature data have shown the effectiveness of this technique, either by using a single shot or catheter technique (RSC). In 2019, a study published by Uvarov in major abdominal surgery proved that RSB analgesia is superior to the systemic one [41]. Compared to TEA, the rectus sheath catheter technique has proved the same degree of analgesia, but with fewer side effects [42,43]. RSB has not proved its usefulness in laparoscopic abdominal surgery [44].

6.5. Continuous Wound Catheter

Pain caused by peritoneum injury has been addressed by trying to block pain through a preperitoneal catheter with a local anesthetic. A meta-analysis performed in 2019 on 564 patients with colorectal resection has shown a decrease in the need for opioids when using a continuous wound catheter, although with moderate evidence [45]. Intra- and postoperative analgesia obtained with continuous wound catheter use seems to be inferior to that obtained using other regional techniques of analgesia. Mann et al. suggest using continuous wound catheter analgesia in emergency laparotomy as part of the multimodal analgesia [46].
A comparison between techniques of regional analgesia in open and laparoscopic/robotic surgery can be found in Table 1.

6.6. Lidocaine

The analgesic effect of lidocaine consists of sodium channel blockade at the neuronal level. Intravenous lidocaine produces prolonged analgesic effects with reduced inflammation, neuropathic pain, and hyperalgesia and may positively affect wound healing and cognitive function [47,48]. In addition to reducing the painful stimulus and the need for opioids, lidocaine also has a direct effect on intestinal motility, diminishing paralytic ileus [49]. Meta-analysis by Cooke et al. has shown that intravenous lidocaine administration in colorectal surgery is associated with reduced pain scores, ileus duration and hospitalization when compared with a placebo [50]. Currently, the optimal dose and duration of lidocaine infusion are still debated, with the most commonly recommended protocol being a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg at induction, followed by a continuous intraoperative infusion of 2 mg/kg/h, with optional continuation in the postoperative period up to 48 h [51]. The ALLEGRO (rAndomised trial of intravenous Lidocaine in acceLErating Gastrointestinal Recovery after cOlorectal surgery) trial (ISRCTN52352431) is on course, assessing the benefit of perioperative intravenous lidocaine in improving the return of gastrointestinal function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery [52]. Intravenous lidocaine may also have antineoplastic effects, as shown by a large prospective study (e.g., NCT 04316013) investigating its impact on cancer [53]. ERAS guidelines recommend IV lidocaine use as part of multimodal analgesia in colorectal surgery, representing an alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia in laparoscopic surgery.

7. Techniques of Parenteral Analgesia

7.1. Opioid Analgesia

Acting on central and peripheral μ, κ and δ receptors, opioids modulate the release of nociceptive neurotransmitters (substance P or glutamate) and hyperpolarize the neuronal membrane, reducing neuronal excitability. Although they confer strong and effective analgesia, their side effects (e.g., drowsiness, respiratory depression, urinary retention, ileus, constipation, nausea, and pruritus) can limit optimal analgesic dosing and may lead to poorer analgesia and recovery. Despite opioid avoidance in the colorectal surgery ERAS goal, opioids are sometimes the mainstay of drug treatment for analgesia in the perioperative period.
Empiric opioid regimens should include consideration of optimal agent selection, dosing, route of administration, and supportive therapies [18]. For patients without prior exposure to opioids, there are “generally preferred” agents with less genetic variability in response, decreased reliance on end-organ function for safety, fewer drug–drug interactions and lower histamine release, such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone instead of morphine, codeine, and tramadol [54,55]. In patients with a prior opioid exposure history, agent selection should always be tailored and monitored for adjustment [18]. Patients with opioid tolerance, chronic pain, and/or opioid use disorder require higher opioid doses and more supportive therapies.
The intravenous (IV) route of administration is the fastest route to provide analgesia. Intermittent IV bolus doses as needed are suggested for titration of opioids for severe acute pain, but IV analgesic regimens should generally be converted to enteral ones as soon as appropriate [56]. In patients requiring prolonged analgesia, it is suitable to administer opioids through a patient-controlled analgesia pump (PCA) without basal infusion rate setting and with continuous monitoring of patient vital signs [51]. Pain regimens should be evaluated and adjusted at least daily through multidimensional pain assessments to optimize efficacy and safety endpoints [18]. Higher doses of opioids confer the risk of longer-term dependence, with up to 10% of opioid-naïve patients continuing opioid use beyond 90 days after a range of major and minor surgeries, with a substantial burden of morbidity and cost to the community [2].
The percentage of hospitalized patients on chronic medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is increasing, and hospital providers must therefore understand the fundamental concepts relating to managing pain in this high-risk population [57] Published evidence and experience support the continuation of methadone (mu-opioid receptor agonist and NMDA antagonist) and buprenorphine (partial mu-opioid receptor agonist and kappa-opioid receptor antagonist) regimens during acute painful episodes, including through surgical encounters. Their continuation improves pain control, reduces the risk of relapse, and has been shown to decrease as-needed opioid requirements in this patient population [18].
Exogenous opioids exert innate and acquired immunity inhibition, adding to immunosuppression generated by surgical stress and pain [58,59]. As a result, their use could increase the risk of postoperative infections and neoplastic cell dissemination. Enhanced tumor growth, angiogenesis, and distant spread owing to transactivation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors and increased expression of opioid receptors suggest a plausible link between opioid prescription and cancer outcomes [60]. Their immunosuppressive effects depend on dose and type. An opioid with lower activity at the level of specific receptors (such as tramadol) is associated with a lower degree of immunosuppression [58].
In the context of a worldwide opioid epidemic, strategies to minimize opioid use in the perioperative setting, whilst optimizing patient comfort and functional recovery, are priorities for multimodal analgesia.

7.2. Non-Opioid Adjuvant Analgesia

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) exert their analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting cyclooxygenase with a consequent decrease in the synthesis of prostaglandins in injured tissue. Together with acetaminophen, they are the cornerstone of multimodal analgesia in major surgery, decreasing the total opioid use and reducing the duration of postoperative ileus. Although several observational studies have shown that the administration of NSAIDs, especially non-selective, is associated with a higher risk of anastomosis leak in colorectal surgery, there is still not enough strong evidence to restrict their use [61,62,63]. However, caution is suggested for patients experiencing digestive anastomosis.
Acetaminophen. A centrally acting analgesic, paracetamol, decreases total opioid use and has a synergistic effect when administered with an NSAID [64] Unlike NSAIDs, it does not interfere with platelet aggregation.
Nefopam. Like paracetamol, nefopam is an analgesic with central action. It does not interfere with platelet aggregation, but through its sympathomimetic activity, it can increase the risk of arrhythmias. Combined with paracetamol or NSAIDs, it has a synergistic effect, managing to decrease opioid use and provide effective analgesia in major surgery [65,66].
Metamizole. Despite its excellent analgesic properties, metamizole is less used as a result of the associated risk of agranulocytosis, although its incidence remains very low [67,68]. Taken together with NSAIDs or opioids, it potentiates their analgesic effect while decreasing the total opioid use. In the absence of adverse gastrointestinal and renal effects of NSAIDs, metamizole use in postoperative multimodal analgesia could spare NSAID use in patients in whom they are contraindicated [69].
NMDA receptor antagonists (e.g., ketamine and magnesium sulfate) have an analgesic effect, diminishing central pain sensitization and preventing the occurrence of postsurgical chronic pain [70] Administered in sub-dissociative doses, ketamine contributes to better pain control and decreased opioid requirements [71], especially in patients with high opioid tolerance. Although the maximum analgesic benefit appears to be in upper abdominal, thoracic and orthopedic major surgery [72], it can also be used with good results in colorectal surgery. Thus, in addition to its analgesic and opioid-sparing effects, ketamine administration led to a decrease in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, fewer areas of hyperalgesia and less residual pain in the first six postoperative months [73]. A recent meta-analysis confirms the beneficial effect of intraoperative magnesium sulphate administration, with decreased opioid requirements in the first 24 h postoperatively and better pain control in major abdominal surgery [74,75].
Gabapentin. By inhibiting neuronal presynaptic calcium influx, gabapentin decreases neuronal excitability, contributing to better control of perioperative pain with a reduction in the need for opioids and possibly preventing chronic surgical pain occurrence [76]. Considering their side effects (e.g., sedation, dizziness, headache, visual disturbances, and edema), it is recommended to limit their administration in major surgery to patients who are already in chronic treatment with gabapentin, with chronic pain or a high tolerance to opioids [51]. Thus, most guidelines, including the ERAS guide for colorectal surgery, propose the administration of a single preoperative dose of gabapentin together with paracetamol and NSAIDs [23,51].
α2 receptor agonists. Analgesic properties of α2 receptor agonists (clonidine, dexmedetomidine) are due to mechanisms that are not yet fully elucidated. Widely used for their sedative, anxiolytic and sympatholytic effects, they are still underused as adjuvants in multimodal analgesia, despite large amounts of evidence in the literature indicating that they decrease the need for anesthetics and opioids in both loco-regional and systemic administration [77,78]. In abdominal surgery, clonidine intravenous or epidural use decreases, in equivalent doses, the need for postoperative analgesia, with similar side effects. The benefits are also maintained with dexmedetomidine intravenous administration in colorectal surgery [79,80]
Corticosteroids. Intravenous administration of preoperative high-dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone dose above 0.1 mg/kg or methylprednisolone 30 mg/kg) reduces postoperative pain and the duration of hospitalization in colorectal surgery without increasing complication incidence, including anastomotic leak risk [81,82,83].
Are there any knowledge gaps in pain management in colorectal surgery?
The expansion of minimally invasive surgery leads to adaptation of the anesthetic and analgesic requirements compared to those required for open surgery.
Epidural analgesia continues to be recommended by ERAS protocols for major abdominal surgery despite its significant side effects, waning popularity, and the increasing use of minimally invasive surgery.
Intrathecal opioids are an attractive option for perioperative analgesia given the ease of delivery, high success rate during instrumentation, early intraoperative and postoperative opioid reduction, and effective postoperative pain management.
There is a need for large multicenter randomized trials directly comparing epidural analgesia with intrathecal morphine in major abdominal (open or laparoscopic) surgery. Intravenous lidocaine’s potential anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antineoplastic benefits must be researched further.
There is a need for large-scale comparative studies on multimodal analgesic protocols designed specifically for laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open surgery, respectively.

8. Conclusions

Perioperative pain management has undergone a change in thinking over the past few decades. If traditionally opioids were the mainstay of drug treatment for analgesia, nowadays, multimodal analgesia is the right choice. This involves the simultaneous use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological analgesia techniques blocking pain pathways at distinct levels. Through their synergistic effects, they ensure better pain control and lower opioid consumption, thus reducing the associated side effects. As a result, opioid-free multimodal analgesia or sparing techniques occupy a key place in protocols for enhanced recovery following colorectal surgery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.I. and M.D.; writing—original draft preparation: R.I., A.S., M.N. and D.M.; writing—review and editing, M.D. and C.D.; visualization, M.D., D.C. and R.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila supported the publication of this paper through the institutional program Publish not Perish.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gerbershagen, H.J.; Aduckathil, S.; van Wijck, A.J.M.; Peelen, L.M.; Kalkman, C.J.; Meissner, W. Pain intensity on the first day after surgery: A prospective cohort study comparing 179 surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 2013, 118, 934–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pirie, K.; Traer, E.; Finniss, D.; Myles, P.S.; Riedel, B. Current approaches to acute postoperative pain management after major abdominal surgery: A narrative review and future directions. Br. J. Anaesth. 2022, 129, 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carreira, E.U.; Carregaro, V.; Teixeira, M.M.; Moriconi, A.; Aramini, A.; Verri, W.A.; Ferreira, S.H.; Cunha, F.Q.; Cunha, T.M. Neutrophils recruited by CXCR1/2 signalling mediate post-incisional pain. Eur. J. Pain 2013, 17, 654–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kim, T.J.; Freml, L.; Park, S.S.; Brennan, T.J. Lactate Concentrations in Incisions Indicate Ischemic-like Conditions May Contribute to Postoperative Pain. J. Pain 2007, 8, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Paul, R.O.; Barash, G.; Cullen, B.F.; Stoelting, R.K.; Cahalan, M.K.; Christine Stock, M. Acute pain management. In Clinical Anesthesia; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 1614–1616. [Google Scholar]
  6. Marchand, S. The Physiology of Pain Mechanisms: From the Periphery to the Brain. Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 2008, 34, 285–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Pogatzki-Zahn, E.M.; Segelcke, D.; Schug, S.A. Postoperative pain—From mechanisms to treatment. Pain Rep. 2017, 2, e588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bushnell, M.C.; Čeko, M.; Low, L.A. Cognitive and emotional control of pain and its disruption in chronic pain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013, 14, 502–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Finnerty, C.C.; Mabvuure, N.T.; Kozar, R.A.; Herndon, D.N. The Surgically Induced Stress Response. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 2013, 37, 21S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Desborough, J.P. The stress response to trauma and surgery. Br. J. Anaesth. 2000, 85, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Puelacher, C.; Lurati-Buse, G.; Singeisen, H.; Dang, M.; Cuculi, F.; Mueller, C. Perioperative myocardial infarction/injury after noncardiac surgery. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2015, 145, w14219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Botto, F.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Chan, M.T.V.; Villar, J.C.; Xavier, D.; Srinathan, S.; Guyatt, G.; Cruz, P.; Graham, M.; Wang, C.Y.; et al. Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery: A Large, International, Prospective Cohort Study Establishing Diagnostic Criteria, Characteristics, Predictors, and 30-day Outcomes. Anesthesiology 2014, 120, 564–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Turan, A.; Leung, S.; Bajracharya, G.R.; Babazade, R.; Barnes, T.; Schacham, Y.N.; Mao, G.; Zimmerman, N.; Ruetzler, K.; Maheshwari, K.; et al. Acute Postoperative Pain Is Associated with Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery. Anesth. Analg. 2020, 131, 822–829. Available online: https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/fulltext/2020/09000/acute_postoperative_pain_is_associated_with.24.aspx (accessed on 23 October 2023). [CrossRef]
  14. Bragg, D.; El-Sharkawy, A.M.; Psaltis, E.; Maxwell-Armstrong, C.A.; Lobo, D.N. Postoperative ileus: Recent developments in pathophysiology and management. Clin. Nutr. 2015, 34, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Haldar, R.; Ben-Eliyahu, S. Reducing the risk of post-surgical cancer recurrence: A perioperative anti-inflammatory anti-stress approach. Future Oncol. 2018, 14, 1017–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gan, T.J. Poorly controlled postoperative pain: Prevalence, consequences, and prevention. J. Pain Res. 2017, 10, 2287–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown, L.; Gray, M.; Griffiths, B.; Jones, M.; Madhavan, A.; Naru, K.; Shaban, F.; Somnath, S.; Harji, D. A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of variation in practice in perioperative analgesia strategies in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery (the LapCoGesic study). Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2020, 102, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hyland, S.J.; Wetshtein, A.M.; Grable, S.J.; Jackson, M.P. Acute Pain Management Pearls: A Focused Review for the Hospital Clinician. Healthcare 2023, 11, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Rigg, J.R.A.; Jamrozik, K.; Myles, P.S.; Silbert, B.S.; Peyton, P.J.; Parsons, R.W.; Collins, K.S. Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: A randomised trial. Lancet 2002, 359, 1276–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shi, W.-Z.; Miao, Y.-L.; Yakoob, M.Y.; Cao, J.-B.; Zhang, H.; Jiang, Y.-G.; Xu, L.-H.; Mi, W.-D. Recovery of gastrointestinal function with thoracic epidural vs. systemic analgesia following gastrointestinal surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2014, 58, 923–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hughes, M.J.; Ventham, N.T.; McNally, S.; Harrison, E.; Wigmore, S. Analgesia After Open Abdominal Surgery in the Setting of Enhanced Recovery Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2014, 149, 1224–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Salicath, J.H.; Yeoh, E.C.; Bennett, M.H. Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 2018, CD010434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gustafsson, U.O.; Scott, M.J.; Hubner, M.; Nygren, J.; Demartines, N.; Francis, N.; Rockall, T.A.; Young-Fadok, T.M.; Hill, A.G.; Soop, M.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 659–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Helander, E.M.; Webb, M.P.; Bias, M.; Whang, E.E.; Kaye, A.D.; Urman, R.D. Use of Regional Anesthesia Techniques: Analysis of Institutional Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols for Colorectal Surgery. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2017, 27, 898–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Saied, N.N.; Helwani, M.A.; Weavind, L.M.; Shi, Y.; Shotwell, M.S.; Pandharipande, P.P. Effect of anaesthesia type on postoperative mortality and morbidities: A matched analysis of the NSQIP database. Br. J. Anaesth. 2017, 118, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bos, E.M.E.; Schut, M.E.; de Quelerij, M.; Kalkman, C.J.; Hollmann, M.W.; Lirk, P. Trends in practice and safety measures of epidural analgesia: Report of a national survey. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2018, 62, 1466–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Coccolini, F.; Corradi, F.; Sartelli, M.; Coimbra, R.; Kryvoruchko, I.A.; Leppaniemi, A.; Doklestic, K.; Bignami, E.; Biancofiore, G.; Bala, M.; et al. Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery: WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines. World J. Emerg. Surg. 2022, 17, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lindberg, M.; Franklin, O.; Svensson, J.; Franklin, K.A. Postoperative pain after colorectal surgery. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2020, 35, 1265–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Khan, S.A.; Khokhar, H.A.; Nasr, A.R.H.; Carton, E.; El-Masry, S. Effect of epidural analgesia on bowel function in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2013, 27, 2581–2591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Perivoliotis, K.; Sarakatsianou, C.; Georgopoulou, S.; Tzovaras, G.; Baloyiannis, I. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) versus patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in laparoscopic colectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2019, 34, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jouve, P.; Bazin, J.E.; Petit, A.; Minville, V.; Gerard, A.; Buc, E.; Dupre, A.; Kwiatkowski, F.; Constantin, J.M.; Futier, E. Epidural versus continuous preperitoneal analgesia during fast-track open colorectal surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2013, 118, 622–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pirrera, B.; Alagna, V.; Lucchi, A.; Berti, P.; Gabbianelli, C.; Martorelli, G.; Mozzoni, L.; Ruggeri, F.; Ingardia, A.; Nardi, G.; et al. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block versus thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in laparoscopic colon surgery in the ERAS program. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Koning, M.V.; Klimek, M.; Rijs, K.; Stolker, R.J.; Heesen, M.A. Intrathecal hydrophilic opioids for abdominal surgery: A meta-analysis, meta-regression, and trial sequential analysis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, 358–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pirie, K.; Doane, M.A.; Riedel, B.; Myles, P.S. Analgesia for major laparoscopic abdominal surgery: A randomised feasibility trial using intrathecal morphine. Anaesthesia 2022, 77, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Day, A.R.; Smith, R.V.P.; Scott, M.J.P.; Fawcett, W.J.; Rockall, T.A. Randomized clinical trial investigating the stress response from two different methods of analgesia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2015, 102, 1473–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wongyingsinn, M.; Baldini, G.; Stein, B.; Charlebois, P.; Liberman, S.; Carli, F. Spinal analgesia for laparoscopic colonic resection using an enhanced recovery after surgery programme: Better analgesia, but no benefits on postoperative recovery: A randomized controlled trial. Br. J. Anaesth. 2012, 108, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rabiee, S.M.; Alijanpour, E.; Jabbari, A.; Rostami, S. Benefits of using intrathecal buprenorphine. Casp. J. Intern. Med. 2014, 5, 143–147. [Google Scholar]
  38. Viderman, D.; Aubakirova, M.; Abdildin, Y.G. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Med. 2022, 8, 802039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tran, D.Q.; Bravo, D.; Leurcharusmee, P.; Neal, J.M. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: A Narrative Review. Anesthesiology 2019, 131, 1166–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hamid, H.K.S.; Marc-Hernández, A.; Saber, A.A. Transversus abdominis plane block versus thoracic epidural analgesia in colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 2021, 406, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Efficasy and Safety of Surgical Continuous Rectus Sheath Block. European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA). Available online: https://journals.lww.com/ejanaesthesiology/Fulltext/2013/06001/Efficasy_and_safety_of_surgical_continuous_rectus.679.aspx (accessed on 9 December 2019).
  42. Tudor, E.C.G.; Yang, W.; Brown, R.; Mackey, P.M. Rectus sheath catheters provide equivalent analgesia to epidurals following laparotomy for colorectal surgery. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2015, 97, 530–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Godden, A.; Marshall, M.; Grice, A.; Daniels, I. Ultrasonography guided rectus sheath catheters versus epidural analgesia for open colorectal cancer surgery in a single centre. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2013, 95, 591–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kinjo, Y.; Kurita, T.; Fujino, Y.; Kawasaki, T.; Yoshino, K.; Hachisuga, T. Evaluation of laparoscopic-guided rectus sheath block in gynecologic laparoscopy: A prospective, double-blind randomized trial. Int. J. Surg. 2019, 62, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liang, S.S.; Ying, A.J.; Affan, E.T.; Kakala, B.F.; Strippoli, G.F.M.; Bullingham, A.; Currow, H.; Dunn, D.W.; Yeh, Z.Y.T. Continuous local anaesthetic wound infusion for postoperative pain after midline laparotomy for colorectal resection in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 2019, CD012310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mann, C.; Couch, D.; Roberts, A.; Packham, A.; Tring, J.; Miller, A. PWE-299 Evaluation of wound infusion catheters as analgesia in elective and emergency colorectal surgery. Gut 2015, 64, A342–A343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Weibel, S.; Jelting, Y.; Pace, N.L.; Helf, A.; Eberhart, L.H.J.; Hahnenkamp, K.; Hollmann, M.W.; Poepping, D.M.; Schnabel, A.; Kranke, P. Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 2018, CD009642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kranke, P.; Jokinen, J.; Pace, N.L.; Schnabel, A.; Hollmann, M.W.; Hahnenkamp, K.; Eberhart, L.H.J.; Poepping, D.M.; Weibel, S. Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD009642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Baumann, A.; Audibert, G.; Klein, O.; Mertes, P.M. Continuous intravenous lidocaine in the treatment of paralytic ileus due to severe spinal cord injury. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2009, 53, 128–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Cooke, C.; Kennedy, E.D.; Foo, I.; Nimmo, S.; Speake, D.; Paterson, H.M.; Ventham, N.T. Meta-analysis of the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on return of gastrointestinal function after colorectal surgery. Tech. Coloproctol. 2019, 23, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Chou, R.; Gordon, D.B.; De Leon-Casasola, O.A.; Rosenberg, J.M.; Bickler, S.; Brennan, T.; Carter, T.; Cassidy, C.L.; Chittenden, E.H.; Degenhardt, E.; et al. Management of postoperative pain: A clinical practice guideline from the American pain society, the American society of regional anesthesia and pain medicine, and the American society of anesthesiologists’ committee on regional anesthesia, executive committee, and administrative council. J. Pain 2016, 17, 131–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Paterson, H.M.; Cotton, S.; Norrie, J.; Nimmo, S.; Foo, I.; Balfour, A.; Speake, D.; MacLennan, G.; Stoddart, A.; Innes, K.; et al. The ALLEGRO trial: A placebo controlled randomised trial of intravenous lidocaine in accelerating gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery. Trials 2022, 23, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wall, T.P.; Buggy, D.J. Perioperative Intravenous Lidocaine and Metastatic Cancer Recurrence—A Narrative Review. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 688896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Smith, H.S. The Metabolism of Opioid Agents and the Clinical Impact of Their Active Metabolites. Clin. J. Pain 2011, 27, 824–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Baldo, B.A.; Pham, N.H. Histamine-Releasing and Allergenic Properties of Opioid Analgesic Drugs: Resolving the Two. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012, 40, 216–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Puntillo, F.; Giglio, M.; Varrassi, G. The Routes of Administration for Acute Postoperative Pain Medication. Pain Ther. 2021, 10, 909–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Veazie, S.; Mackey, K.; Peterson, K.; Bourne, D. Managing Acute Pain in Patients Taking Medication for Opioid Use Disorder: A Rapid Review. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2020, 35, 945–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Moyano, J.; Aguirre, L. Opioids in the immune system: From experimental studies to clinical practice. Rev. Assoc. Medica Bras. 2019, 65, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Dang, Y.; Shi, X.; Xu, W.; Zuo, M. The effect of anesthesia on the immune system in colorectal cancer patients. Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 2018, 7940603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Grandhi, R.K.; Lee, S.; Abd-Elsayed, A. Does Opioid Use Cause Angiogenesis and Metastasis? Pain Med. 2017, 18, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Saleh, F.; Jackson, T.D.; Ambrosini, L.; Gnanasegaram, J.J.; Kwong, J.; Quereshy, F.; Okrainec, A. Perioperative Nonselective Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Are Not Associated with Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2014, 18, 1398–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hultberg, D.K.; Angenete, E.; Lydrup, M.L.; Rutegård, J.; Matthiessen, P.; Rutegård, M. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 43, 1908–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rutegard, M.; Westermark, S.; Hultberg, D.K.; Haapamäki, M.; Matthiessen, P.; Rutegard, J. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and risk of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection: A protocol-based study. Dig. Surg. 2016, 33, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ong, C.K.S.; Seymour, R.A.; Lirk, P.; Merry, A.F. Combining paracetamol (acetaminophen) with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: A qualitative systematic review of analgesic efficacy for acute postoperative pain. Anesth. Analg. 2010, 110, 1170–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Martinez, V.; Beloeil, H.; Marret, E.; Fletcher, D.; Ravaud, P.; Trinquart, L. Non-opioid analgesics in adults after major surgery: Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br. J. Anaesth. 2017, 118, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Jin, H.S.; Kim, Y.C.; Yoo, Y.; Lee, C.; Cho, C.W.; Kim, W.-J. Opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam in patient controlled analgesia after laparotomy: A randomized, double blind study. J. Int. Med. Res. 2016, 44, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Nikolova, I.; Tencheva, J.; Voinikov, J.; Petkova, V.; Benbasat, N.; Danchev, N. Metamizole: A review profile of a well-known “forgotten” drug. Part I: Pharmaceutical and nonclinical profile. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2012, 26, 3329–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nikolova, I.; Petkova, V.; Tencheva, J.; Benbasat, N.; Voinikov, J.; Danchev, N. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment Metamizole: A Review Profile of a Well-Known “Forgotten” Drug. Part II: Clinical Profile. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2014, 27, 3605–3619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Konijnenbelt-Peters, J.; van der Heijden, C.; Ekhart, C.; Bos, J.; Bruhn, J.; Kramers, C. Metamizole (Dipyrone) as an Alternative Agent in Postoperative Analgesia in Patients with Contraindications for Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. Pain Pract. 2017, 17, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gorlin, A.; Rosenfeld, D.; Ramakrishna, H. Intravenous sub-anesthetic ketamine for perioperative analgesia. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2016, 32, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Brinck, E.; Tiippana, E.; Heesen, M.; Bell, R.F.; Straube, S.; Moore, R.A.; Kontinen, V. Perioperative intravenous ketamine for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 12, CD012033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Laskowski, K.; Stirling, A.; McKay, W.P.; Lim, H.J. A systematic review of intravenous ketamine for postoperative analgesia. Can. J. Anesth. 2011, 58, 911–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. De Kock, M.; Lavand’homme, P.; Waterloos, H. “Balanced analgesia” in the perioperative period: Is there a place for ketamine? Pain 2001, 92, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Albrecht, E.; Kirkham, K.R.; Liu, S.S.; Brull, R. Peri-operative intravenous administration of magnesium sulphate and postoperative pain: A meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2013, 68, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. De Oliveira, G.S.; Castro-Alves, L.J.; Khan, J.H.; McCarthy, R.J. Perioperative systemic magnesium to minimize postoperative pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology 2013, 119, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Clarke, H.; Bonin, R.P.; Orser, B.A.; Englesakis, M.; Wijeysundera, D.N.; Katz, J. The prevention of chronic postsurgical pain using gabapentin and pregabalin: A combined systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth. Analg. 2012, 115, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Chan, A.K.M.; Cheung, C.W.; Chong, Y.K. Alpha-2 agonists in acute pain management. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2010, 11, 2849–2868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Munoz, M.C.S.; De Kock, M.; Forget, P. What is the place of clonidine in anesthesia? Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Anesth. 2017, 38, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ge, D.J.; Qi, B.; Tang, G.; Li, J.Y. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine promotes postoperative analgesia and recovery in patients after abdominal colectomy: A CONSORT-prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Medicine 2015, 94, e1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cheung, C.W.; Qiu, Q.; Ying, A.C.L.; Choi, S.W.; Law, W.L.; Irwin, M.G. The effects of intra-operative dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain, side-effects and recovery in colorectal surgery. Anaesthesia 2014, 69, 1214–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vignali, A.; Di Palo, S.; Orsenigo, E.; Ghirardelli, L.; Radaelli, G.; Staudacher, C. Effect of prednisolone on local and systemic response in laparoscopic vs. open colon surgery: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dis. Colon Rectum 2009, 52, 1080–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Srinivasa, S.; Kahokehr, A.A.; Yu, T.C.; Hill, A.G. Preoperative glucocorticoid use in major abdominal surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ann. Surg. 2011, 254, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. De Oliveira, G.S.; Almeida, M.D.; Benzon, H.T.; McCarthy, R.J. Perioperative single dose systemic dexamethasone for postoperative pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology 2011, 115, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 06771 g001
Figure 1. Discriminative pain pathways (created using BioRender.com).
Figure 1. Discriminative pain pathways (created using BioRender.com).
Jcm 12 06771 g001
Table 1. Comparison between techniques of regional analgesia.
Table 1. Comparison between techniques of regional analgesia.
Analgesic Techniques and Surgery TypeBenefitsRisks
Epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgeryReduced respiratory complications.
Reduced rest pain scores [19].
Prevents intestinal mucosa degradation.
Reduced time to return of bowel
function.
Reduces surgical stress [24].
Decreased hospital length of stay [25].
ERAS guidelines recommendation [23].		No morbidity or mortality benefit [19].
Increase analgesia
failure [2].
Increase hypotension requiring treatment [2].
Technical and neurological complications.
Epidural analgesia in laparoscopic/robotic colorectal surgeryReduced pain (24 h) [29].
Conflicting findings on side effects, time to return of bowel function, and hospital length of stay [30].
Not superior to TAP [32].		Higher overall complication rate [30].
Intrathecal opioids in open/laparoscopic/robotic surgeryReduced opioid requirement (24 h)
Reduced rest pain (24 h)
and dynamic pain (up to 48 h)
Reduction in hypotension [34].		Dose-dependent delayed respiratory depression [33].
Dose-dependent pruritus
and nausea.
Sedation similar to systemic opioids [35,36].
Transversus abdominis plane block in open/laparoscopic/robotic surgeryReduced opioids need
Improved early pain control [38].
Compared to epidural:
-
Superior functional recovery
-
Reduced time to ambulate,
-
Reduced urinary catheter time.
-
Reduced hypotension [40].
Easy to perform and cost-effective.		Did not influence postoperative nausea and vomiting and length of hospital stay.
Rectus sheath block in open surgeryCompared to epidural:
-
Comparable degree of analgesia
-
Fewer side effects [42,43].
Not useful in laparoscopic
surgery [44].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ivascu, R.; Dutu, M.; Stanca, A.; Negutu, M.; Morlova, D.; Dutu, C.; Corneci, D. Pain in Colorectal Surgery: How Does It Occur and What Tools Do We Have for Treatment? J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 6771. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12216771

AMA Style

Ivascu R, Dutu M, Stanca A, Negutu M, Morlova D, Dutu C, Corneci D. Pain in Colorectal Surgery: How Does It Occur and What Tools Do We Have for Treatment? Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(21):6771. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12216771

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ivascu, Robert, Madalina Dutu, Alina Stanca, Mihai Negutu, Darius Morlova, Costin Dutu, and Dan Corneci. 2023. "Pain in Colorectal Surgery: How Does It Occur and What Tools Do We Have for Treatment?" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 21: 6771. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12216771

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop