Document resource
Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has been a cornerstone in perioperative pain management for many decades, particularly for thoracic and abdominal surgeries. With the evolving surgical practices and emergence of alternative analgesic techniques, including fascial plane blocks and, TEA has been considered by many as obsolete. This manuscript explores the current evidence supporting TEA’s efficacy, addresses common criticisms, and delineates its role in contemporary anesthetic practice. In summary, TEA remains a valuable tool in the anesthesiologist’s arsenal in selected patients.Introduction The field of anesthesiology has witnessed remarkable changes over the past two decades, with the rise of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, minimally invasive surgical techniques, and non-neuraxial regional anesthetic techniques such as fascial plane blocks. 1 2 In this dynamic environment, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), once considered the gold standard for perioperative pain management in major thoracic and abdominal surgeries, has faced scrutiny. Critics have questioned its continued relevance, citing concerns about its invasiveness, potential complications, and the perceived equivalence of newer ultrasound guided techniques.3–5 However, these assertions often lack context and fail to account the specific context in which TEA continues to offer unparalleled benefits. Rather than viewing TEA as a relic of the past, it is more appropriate to consider it a specialized and highly effective tool, one that, when used judiciously, can significantly enhance perioperative outcomes.TEA offers robust segmental analgesia by blocking afferent nociceptive input and efferent sympathetic fibers at the thoracoabdominal level.6 Especially the visceral component is unique and cannot be achieved by any of the proposed modern regional analgesic techniques.6 As surgical invasiveness decreases, visceral pain often becomes the dominant source of postoperative discomfort, making TEA’s comprehensive analgesic profile even more valuable. Consequently, its efficacy in open abdominal or thoracic surgeries such as lobectomies, esophagectomies, and open aortic repairs is well-documented. Beyond excellent pain control, TEA has also been associated with improved pulmonary function and a reduced incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs).7 Recent meta-analyses continue to support these findings, demonstrating that TEA significantly reduces PPCs and improves pain scores compared to systemic opioids, particularly following esophagectomy.8 This translated into relevant clinical benefits: reduced opioid requirements, enhanced patient satisfaction and earlier mobilization.This manuscript aims to critically reexamine TEA’s relevance by presenting current evidence, dispelling common myths, and highlighting clinical scenarios where TEA remains not only relevant but demonstrably superior to popular alternative techniques.Benefits from TEA Opioids remain a cornerstone in perioperative anesthesia and analgesia. 9 Nevertheless, its liberal use is accompanied by multiple side effects, including postoperative nausea and vomiting, ileus, sedation, hyperalgesia, and respiratory depression. Strategies to mitigate these side-effects by reducing the amount of opioids are therefore essential to enhance recovery.9 TEA produces an unparalleled potent opioid-sparing effect in patients undergoing major thoracic and abdominal surgeries. A meta-analysis concluded that TEA was associated with lower postoperative opioid use and superior pain control after open colorectal and upper GI surgeries.10 This translates into fewer opioid-related adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, ileus, and respiratory depression.11 12 Moreover, TEA contributes to earlier return of gastrointestinal function, improved pulmonary function and shorter hospital stays in major thoraco-abdominal surgeries.10–12 Role of TEA in ERAS ProtocolsERAS protocols aim to reduce surgical stress, maintain physiological function, and promote early mobilization using an evidence-based approach.1 A central tenet of ERAS is the minimization of opioid use, as excessive reliance on opioids is a known contributor to ERAS failure doe to the aforementioned side effects.Benefits of TEA aligns closely with these objectives.11 13 14 By providing superior segmental analgesia, covering both somatic and visceral components, in addition to reducing to opioid consumption and mitigating opioid related side-effects, TEA also blunts the neuroendocrine stress response and facilitates early ambulation and recovery.13 15 However, recent ERAS protocols increasingly emphasize incorporating non-neuraxial regional techniques, such as fascial plane blocks, as part of opioid-sparing strategies.1–3 For many patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures, such as uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy surgery, these alternative offer adequate analgesia.Nevertheless, in patients at high-risk of severe pain or pulmonary complications or in those undergoing major thoraco-abdominal surgery, TEA remains the most effective technique. In this context, TEA has been associated with lower pain scores, reduced pulmonary complications, enhancing recovery and quality of life, and shorter length of intensive care and hospital stay.16–19 Dispelling Common Myths TEA causes persistent hypotension:One of the most frequently cited drawbacks of TEA is the risk for persistent hypotension due, primarily due to sympathetic blockade.15 This effect is particularly pronounced with thoracic epidurals, leading to vasodilation and reduced vascular resistance. While this is a legitimate concern, it is important to contextualize it within modern perioperative management strategies.Moreover, this controlled sympathetic blockade created by TEA is not purely detrimental, as TEA has been shown to improve splanchnic perfusion, reduce myocardial oxygen demand, and reduce surgical stress hormone responses.20 Contemporary strategies, including goal-directed fluid therapy, vasopressor titration and enhanced hemodynamic monitoring, have improved the ability to prevent and manage TEA-associated hypotension safely and effectively.21 TEA is technically difficult and unreliable:A common argument against the use of TEA is its perceived technical difficulty and variability in success. However, as with any advanced technique, such variability should not justify its dismissal. Instead, institutions should prioritize structured training programs that include anatomical and simulation-based training, and the use of adjunctive or confirmatory technologies such as ultrasound, epidural wave form analysis or electrical epidural stimulation.22 These efforts should be supported by continuous quality improvement initiatives to ensure procedural competence and consistency across providers.21 23 Large cohort studies and expert consensus have consistently demonstrated that when performed by experienced practitioners within a well-supported system, TEA achieves high success rates with a low incidence of complications. Therefore, rather than abandoning TEA, it should be embraced as a valuable technique that can be safely and effectively be implemented in selected cases.21 22 Fascial plane blocks are equally effective:Recent popular fascial plane blocks, including transversus abdominis plane (TAP), paravertebral block (PVB), erector spinae plane (ESP) and serratus anterior plane (SAP) block. These techniques offer analgesia that is, in many cases, comparable to TEA for selected endpoints. In addition, they are generally considered technically easier to perform and are associated with more favorable safety profile. Among these, the PVB has reemerged as a preferred alternative in thoracic surgery. It provides effective unilateral analgesia with significantly fewer side effects compared to TEA. However, a meta-analysis comparing PVB and TEA in thoracotomy patients found that while both techniques were effective, TEA provided more consistent pain control and improved preservation of pulmonary function.24 The ESP and SAP block are often favored in by clinicians patients due to their superficial locations and perceived safety.3 15 However, their efficacy can be variable, even more in bilateral or extensive surgical fields.25 Additionally, these blocks require higher volumes of local anesthetics, which may increase the risk of systemic toxicity.26 In summary, while fascial plane blocks appear attractive for low-risk patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures in, their role in high-risk surgeries and patients remains less well defined. TEA continues to be the most reliable technique in these settings, supported by robust evidence demonstrating superiority in enhancing recovery.15 Therefore, TEA remains the primary choice for open thoraco-abdominal surgeries.27 28 Conclusion The assertion that thoracic epidurals are obsolete fails to account for the robust body of evidence supporting their continued use in carefully selected patient populations. TEA remains the gold standard for thoracic and abdominal procedures, particularly in high-risk patients and open surgeries. Its role in reducing postoperative complications, enhancing recovery, and minimizing opioid exposure cannot be overstated.Rather than abandoning TEA, the focus should shift toward optimizing its use, through thoughtful patient selection, institutional support, and ongoing training. As anesthetic practice continues to evolve, TEA stands not as a relic, but as a precision instrument, highly effective when applied judiciously within the right clinical context.References Batchelor TJP, Rasburn NJ, Abdelnour-Berchtold E, Brunelli A, Cerfolio RJ, Gonzalez M, et al. Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS(R)) society and the european society of thoracic surgeons (ESTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;55(1):91–115.Hoogma DF, Brullot L, Coppens S. Get your 7-point golden medal for pain management in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2024;37(1):64–8.Feray S, Lubach J, Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Van de Velde M, Anaesthesia PWGotESoR, et al. PROSPECT guidelines for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Anaesthesia 2022;77(3):311–25.Lin J, Liao Y, Gong C, Yu L, Gao F, Yu J, et al. Regional analgesia in video-assisted thoracic surgery: a bayesian network meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:842332.Spaans LN, Dijkgraaf MGW, Susa D, de Loos ER, Mourisse JMJ, Bouwman RA, et al. Intercostal or paravertebral block vs thoracic epidural in lung surgery: a randomized noninferiority trial. JAMA Surg. 2025.Manion SC, Brennan TJ. Thoracic epidural analgesia and acute pain management. Anesthesiology 2011;115(1):181–8.Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, McKee A, Kehlet H, van Zundert A, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1493.Macrosson D, Beebeejaun A, Odor PM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic epidural analgesia versus other analgesic techniques in patients post-oesophagectomy. Perioper Med (Lond). 2024;13(1):80.Kharasch ED, Clark JD. Opioid-free anesthesia: time to regain our balance. Anesthesiology 2021;134(4):509–14.Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CH, Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr. 2010;29(4):434–40.Popping DM, Elia N, Marret E, Remy C, Tramer MR. Protective effects of epidural analgesia on pulmonary complications after abdominal and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):990–9. discussion 1000.Guay J, Nishimori M, Kopp S. Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, vomiting and pain after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7(7):CD001893.Coppens S, Degroof P, Hoogma DF, Brullot L, Van Loon P. #36929 Thoracic epidurals for eras in thoracic and abdominal surgery- still relevant? Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2023;48(Suppl 1):A362-A4.Holte K, Kehlet H. Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia - effects on surgical stress responses and implications for postoperative nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2002;21(3):199–206.Carver A, Wou F, Pawa A. Do outcomes differ between thoracic epidurals and continuous fascial plane blocks in adults undergoing major abdominal surgery? Current Anesthesiology Reports 2023;14(1):25–41.Pandraklakis A, Haidopoulos D, Lappas T, Stamatakis E, Valsamidis D, Oikonomou MD, et al. Thoracic epidural analgesia as part of an enhanced recovery program in gynecologic oncology: a prospective cohort study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023;33(11):1794–9.Feltracco P, Bortolato A, Barbieri S, Michieletto E, Serra E, Ruol A, et al. Perioperative benefit and outcome of thoracic epidural in esophageal surgery: a clinical review. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31(5).Chiew JK, Low CJW, Zeng K, Goh ZJ, Ling RR, Chen Y, et al. Thoracic epidural anesthesia in cardiac surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 2023;137(3):587–600.Semmelmann A, Baar W, Moneke I, Loop T. Criteria for continuous neuraxial analgesia associated with reduced mortality in patients undergoing thoracotomy. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2024.Guay J, Kopp S. Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(1):CD005059.Coppens S, Dewinter G, Hoogma DF, Raudsepp M, Vogelaerts R, Brullot L, et al. Safety and efficacy of high thoracic epidural analgesia for chest wall surgery in young adolescents: a retrospective cohort analysis and a new standardised definition for success rate. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2024;41(12):873–80.Tran Q, Booysen K, Botha HJ. Primary failure of thoracic epidural analgesia: revisited. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2024;49(4):298–303.Dos Santos Fernandes H, Siddiqui N, Peacock S, Vidal E, Matelski J, Entezari B, et al. Effectiveness of preoperative thoracic epidural testing strategies: a retrospective comparison of three commonly used testing methods. Can J Anaesth. 2024;71(6):793–801.Xu M, Hu J, Yan J, Yan H, Zhang C. Paravertebral block versus thoracic epidural analgesia for postthoracotomy pain relief: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;70(5):413–21.Chin KJ, McDonnell JG, Carvalho B, Sharkey A, Pawa A, Gadsden J. Essentials of our current understanding: abdominal wall blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42(2):133–83.Coppens S, Hoogma DF, Dewinter G, Neyrinck A, Van Loon P, Stessel B, et al. Erector spinae plane block versus intercostal nerve blocks in uniportal videoscopic assisted thoracic surgery: a multicenter, double-blind, prospective randomized placebo controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2025.Irani JL, Hedrick TL, Miller TE, Lee L, Steinhagen E, Shogan BD, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American society of colon and rectal surgeons and the society of American gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(1):5–30.Makkad B, Heinke TL, Sheriffdeen R, Khatib D, Brodt JL, Meng ML, et al. Practice advisory for preoperative and intraoperative pain management of thoracic surgical patients: part 1. Anesth Analg. 2023;137(1):2–25.