In the current study, we describe the impact of INC during MIRPE compared to PVBs. We observed that patients who received INC had a decrease in overall opioid use during hospitalization, daily opioid use, and prescription opioids at discharge compared to those who had PVB as part of their care. While INC was associated with increased operative times, it was also found to reduce hospital LOS by one day and was not associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications.
Our findings on the effects that INC has on inpatient opioid use and hospital LOS following MIRPE compared to other analgesic strategies including thoracic epidurals, elastomeric pain pumps, and multimodal pain regimens, are consistent with previous reports. However, there is little reported comparing outcomes between patients who received INC and PVB during MIRPE. In 2023, Akinboro et al. report on their experience using INC during MIRPE compared to PVB.24 Using a prospective methodology, they compared 17 patients who had INC during MIPRE to a historic cohort with PVB; they found that patients with INC had a significant decrease in hospital LOS and 10-fold reduction in inpatient opioid use. Despite the favorable findings of INC, this study was underpowered. In our study, we observed an approximate 2.5-fold decrease in opioid use per hospital day. Zeinneddin et al. had similar findings when reviewing 198 patients who underwent MIRPE with either INC or PVB, observing that the INC cohort had a five-fold reduction in opioid use per day than those with PVB alone. The results of these studies suggest that INC significantly decreases the amount of inpatient opioid requirement compared to PVB.
Additionally, we observed a significant decrease in outpatient opioid prescriptions with the use of INC compared to PVBs. This study adds to the knowledge of INC use in MIRPE as it assesses one of the largest cohorts of patients receiving INC. Additionally, while other studies have looked at opioid use in the hospital following cryoablation, few have adjusted for the shortened LOS in the non-cryoablation group in their studies. While it was known that INC led to decreased total opioid use while in the hospital, no studies had assessed whether this change was secondary to the shorter length of stay in INC patients. When accounting for the longer length of stay in the non-cryoablation group, the non-cryoablation group used more than double the opioids compared to the INC group. This result suggests that the decrease in opioid use in the cryoablation group isn’t just a product of quicker discharges, but that cryoablation is effective in decreasing pain postoperatively. Furthermore, our study demonstrated that fewer opioids are prescribed upon release from the hospital in the INC group. Data demonstrating that INC decreases the reliance on opioids for pain control may encourage surgeons to prescribe less. A study by Lai et al. compared patients who received INC in the earliest quarter after its implementation to those who received it three quarters later. The findings indicated that patients in the later group were discharged earlier and required fewer opioids both during their hospital stay and upon discharge.25 These findings imply that as surgeons and centers become more comfortable with INC procedures, future INC procedures may require even fewer opioids.
Furthermore, other studies have had results consistent with our finding that LOS is decreased in patients who undergo cryoablation for Nuss procedures. Holguin et al. compared patients utilizing INC to those who used thoracic epidural for pain management undergoing the Nuss procedure and found a two-day shorter length of stay in the INC group compared to the epidural group. Song et al. also reported that INC appears to reduce post-operative hospital stay.26 Additionally, while the difference in length of stay between the groups was significant at one day, more patients were being discharged on POD 1 as surgeon familiarity with INC improved over the course of this study. We expect that as familiarity increases, this gap will continue to widen. Our study’s findings and previous literature suggest that improved pain control provided by INC decreases the length of postoperative hospital stay.
Our study found that one drawback of INC is that it adds operating time. This is not surprising given that during the INC procedure, intercostal nerves from the 3rd to the 8th nerve bilaterally are ablated for two minutes each. Our finding is supported by Cockrell et al., who reported a similar result that INC increased operative time by 26 minutes.27 Other studies by Clark et al. and Rettig et al. also showed INC increased operative time.28,29 However, Rettig et al. did not find a significant difference in total operating room time when comparing the two groups even though there was a difference in actual operative time.20 This study supports previous findings in the literature that INC does add operative time, however, we did not account for total time in the operating room which is likely similar considering the time needed to place PVBs. With this increased operating time and device utilization, there is some concern that INC may be more expensive than other pain management methods. However, in our cost analysis, we gathered cost data for 200 patients in our study and found that the reduced length of stay for patients in the INC group, compared to the PVB group, resulted in an average reduction in gross charges of $8,052 per patient. Extrapolating this to an average of 55 Nuss procedure cases per year, utilizing INC would lead to a total gross charge reduction of $442,859 annually.This supports previous studies by Aiken et al. and Rettig et al. that showed INC was associated with lower costs than PVB and further supports the adoption of INC in Nuss procedures.20,21
Our study found that complications were not significantly different when comparing patients who received cryoablation to those who received PVBs. This finding was supported by the literature review by Eldredge et al., which found that the overall complication rate was either significantly lower or no difference between the INC and non-INC cohorts.4 While our study reported a slightly higher complication rate compared to other studies, we have implemented several practices to reduce this rate, including a comprehensive infection prevention protocol. Notably, all brachial plexus injuries in the INC group have fully recovered. The extended OR time may have contributed to these injuries. Following the last recorded injury, we adjusted patient positioning by placing the arms by the side, and we have not had any subsequent injuries since. Furthermore, while the INC group did have more pain-requiring intervention that approached significance (p = 0.069), the intervention in all 3 cases was sidebar removal. Of note, one surgeon in our practice stopped using sidebars as it was thought to be contributing to pain independent of cryoablation. In summary, pain management modality does not affect the complication rate following MIRPE.
There are several significant limitations to this study. First, this retrospective review was conducted at a single institution. Thus, the generalizability of the findings may be limited. Additionally, patients were not randomized into the cryoablation or no cryoablation group; the decision to utilize was made by the attending surgeon. Additionally, opioid prescribing patterns differ between surgeons. This aspect of the study design makes it difficult to determine the exact nature of the relationship between cryoablation and opioid prescription patterns and inherently biases the study as differences in surgeons introduce multiple confounding factors. Multiple techniques in operative procedure, infection prevention, and positioning changed over the study period which also has the potential to bias our results. Finally, it may be hard to assess precisely what role INC has on opioid use. It should be noted that a general encouragement to reduce opioids with recognition of a national pandemic coincided with the institution of INC. The retrospective nature of this study made it impossible to determine the actual home opioid usage. Opioids on discharge may be more of an indication of provider willingness to prescribe and not a true measure of patient opioid use. While we cannot determine causation, the shift to cryoablation was associated with a change in practice which is beneficial to the patient.