P1.206. Pain Discordance Between Abdominal and Thoracic Sites After Oesophagectomy in a Multimodal Analgesia Pathway

Clicks: 18
ID: 326160
2026
Free PDF
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.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #319 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create 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
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer – early outcomes and complications Background Pain after oesophagectomy arises from both abdominal and thoracic components, yet patients often report unequal site-specific pain. Quantifying abdominal–thoracic pain discordance may help tailor site-targeted analgesic strategies and clarify whether robotic access reduces clinically meaningful discordance. Methods A retrospective audit of consecutive oesophagectomy patients managed within a multimodal analgesia pathway. Abdominal and thoracic pain scores (0–10 NRS) recorded on postoperative days (POD) 1–5 were extracted; for each POD, the maximum recorded score at each site was used. Discordance was calculated as thoracic minus abdominal pain (paired by patient and POD) and summarised as thorax-dominant (>0), abdomen-dominant (<0), or equal. Large discordance was prespecified as an absolute inter-site difference >3 points. Differences in large discordance by thoracic access (open vs robotic) were analysed using a population-averaged logistic model (GEE) with clustering by patient and adjustment for POD. Results A total of 131 patients contributed 647 paired patient-days. Thoracic pain exceeded abdominal pain in 39.9% of observations, abdominal exceeded thoracic in 17.0%, and scores were equal in 43.1%. Large discordance (>3 points) occurred in 21.3% of patient-days. Large discordance was more frequent following open thoracic access than robotic thoracic access (25.1% vs 17.3%). In the adjusted GEE model, open thoracic access showed higher odds of large discordance (odds ratio 1.60, 95% CI 0.97–2.65; p=0.067). Conclusion Recognising patterns of discordance may support ongoing quality improvement by enabling more targeted analgesic strategies, particularly through refinement of regional anaesthesia techniques. Open thoracic access showed a trend toward greater ldiscordance compared with robotic access. Further work should focus on identifying predictors of discordance and examining associations with opioid consumptions, mobilisation, postoperative complications and length of stay.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203975102 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Natawadee Chantima, Christopher Browell, Jakub Chmelo, Emma Flynn, Hollie Dixon, Emily Duncan, Nicola Stephens, Alexander Phillips
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.354
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.354
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.