Prospective Randomized Trial: Pain Management After Pectus Excavatum Repair, Epidural Versus PCA

Pectus excavatum, the most common chest wall deformity, occurs in roughly one in 1000 children.1 Operative repair of the anterior thoracic concavity has transitioned to the minimally invasive approach with substernal bar placement through small axillary incisions (Nuss procedure and multiple modifications). These procedures were quickly incorporated by high volume centers around the world including our own.2-7 The operation is certainly quicker and associated with less blood loss than the open operation, but as opposed to most minimally invasive versions of an operation, patients do not leave the hospital sooner after bar placement and experience more post-operative pain.6,7,8 Pain during the post-operative hospital stay is the dominant management issue after bar placement. The sparse literature on the topic has suggested that a thoracic epidural is the most effective means for attenuating the pain during the first few post-operative days.10-12 Therefore; most centers approach all patients undergoing a pectus deformity repair with an attempt at epidural placement under the assumption that this provides the most effective strategy for pain control.3-9, 13 However, the investigator conducted a retrospective evaluation to examine the validity of this assumption and to investigate whether there is a role for a prospective study to determine the optimum post-operative pain management of these patients.14 The investigator found length of stay was shorter with PCA and pain scores were similar. What the investigator found certainly challenges the assumption that an epidural is the optimum management for these patients, and convincingly answered the question as to whether there is a role for a prospective randomized trial.

The investigator conducted the prospective, randomized trial in 110 patients.15 The investigator found the pain scores were better with epidural for the first 2 days and better with PCA the last 2 days. There was no difference in length of stay although it trended to favor PCA. Epidural group incurred far greater operation times and charges. The pragmatic interpretation was that the investigator should just use PCA. The anesthesia interpretation is that the investigator need a better epidural. Therefore, the investigator have developed a better protocol for the transition to try to improve pain control the last 2 days. Further, the investigator recognize several flaws in the last study; the investigator included patients at extremes of age which don't represent a normal course. Second, the investigator kept patients in the hospital until they had a bowel movement which may have prolonged the care unnecessarily in the PCA group. The investigator will use the same sample size as last time since the difference in length of stay the investigator were designed to detect was more than a day which is clinically relevant.