Rectus sheath catheters versus thoracic epidural analgesia for pain management after open surgery – A systematic review and meta-analysis
Clicks: 1
ID: 313693
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #218 of 432 articles by views in the british journal of surgery
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 432 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Thoracic epidural analgesia remains the gold standard for postoperative pain management after major open surgery, but is potentially associated with hypotension, urinary retention, and delayed recovery. Rectus sheath catheters offer a simple regional alternative that avoids sympathetic blockade while maintaining somatic analgesia. This review aims to compare analgesic efficacy, complications, recovery, patient satisfaction, and costs between rectus sheath catheters and thoracic epidural anaesthesia in open surgical procedures. METHODS: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251234467). A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify studies comparing continuous wound infusion via rectus sheath catheters with thoracic epidural anaesthesia in adult patients undergoing open abdominal, pelvic, thoracic, or vascular surgery. Randomized clinical trials, as well as prospective and retrospective comparative studies, were included. A meta-analysis was performed for randomized trials. RESULTS: 31 studies (21 prospective, 10 retrospective) involving 2162 patients were included. Rectus sheath catheters and thoracic epidural anaesthesia did not differ significantly with respect to postoperative pain (SMD: -0.35; 95%CI: -2.01-1.32) or opioid consumption (SMD: -0.32; 95%CI: -1.71-1.07). No differences were observed in recovery of bowel function, urinary retention, time to mobilisation, or length of hospital stay. Rectus sheath catheters significantly reduced the risk of hypotension compared with thoracic epidural anaesthesia (RR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.26-0.60) and were associated with lower costs ranging from $500 to $6632 per case. Subgroup analyses suggested less urinary retention and earlier mobilisation with rectus sheath catheters in non-visceral surgery and non-laparotomy incisions. CONCLUSIONS: Rectus sheath catheters provide analgesia comparable to thoracic epidural anaesthesia with fewer complications, facilitating earlier recovery and potential cost savings. Considering the growing shift toward fast-track surgery, rectus sheath catheters represent a pragmatic and resource-efficient alternative for postoperative pain management in open surgical procedures.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7161176210
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Christian D. Fankhauser, Stefan Breitenstein, Hans Gelpke, Caveh Madjdpour, Gesine Meili, Leila Sultan-Beyer, Thomas R. Wyss, Ernest Kaufmann |
| Journal | the british journal of surgery |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/bjs/znag058
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.