Interest of Using Ropivacaine for Outpatient Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Prospective Randomized Trial

Efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal ropivacaine in pain management following laparoscopic digestive surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

Managing postoperative pain effectively with an opioid-free regimen following laparoscopic surgery (LS) remains a significant challenge. Intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine has been explored for its potential to reduce acute postoperative pain, but its efficacy and safety are still under debate. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine for acute pain management following laparoscopic digestive surgery.

METHODS

We used PRISMA 2020 and a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 guidelines to conduct this review. The random-effects model was adopted using Review Manager Version 5.4 for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

We retained 24 eligible RCTs involving 1705 patients (862 patients in the intraperitoneal instillation group and 843 patients in the control group). The intraperitoneal instillation group reduced total opioid consumption during the first 24 hours postoperatively (MD = -21.93 95% CI [-27.64, -16.23], P < .01), decreased pain scores at different time (4 hours, 8 hours, 12 hours and 24 hours), shorter the hospital stay (MD = -0.20 95% CI [-0.36, -0.05], P < .01), reduced the postoperative shoulder pain (MD = 0.18 95% CI [0.07, 0.44], P < .01), and decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting (MD = 0.47 95% CI [0.29, 0.77], P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine appears to be an effective component of multimodal pain management strategies following laparoscopic digestive surgery, significantly reducing opioid consumption and improving postoperative recovery markers. Despite these promising results, additional high-quality trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of this approach.

REGISTRATION

The registration number at PROSPERO was CRD42021279238.

Efficacy of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We designed this study to evaluate the impact of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

In total, 98 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included and randomized. In the experimental group, intravenous lidocaine (bolus 1.5 mg/kg and continuous infusion 2 mg/kg/h) was administered intraoperatively additionally to the standard analgesia, whereas the control group received a matching placebo. Blinding existed at the level of both the patient and the investigator.

RESULTS

Our study failed to confirm any benefit in opioid consumption, during the postoperative period. Lidocaine resulted to reduced intraoperative systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure. Lidocaine administration did not change postoperative pain scores or the incidence of shoulder pain, at any time endpoint. Moreover, we did not identify any difference in terms of postoperative sedation levels and nausea rates.

CONCLUSION

Overall, lidocaine did not have any effect on postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be a way of reducing pain. A previous version of this Cochrane Review found very low-certainty evidence on the benefits and harms of the intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 19 January 2021 together with reference checking of studies retrieved. We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021. We contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, publication status, or relevance of outcome measure) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, for the review. We excluded non-randomised studies, and studies where the method of allocating participants to a treatment was not strictly random (e.g. date of birth, hospital record number, or alternation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, pain, return to activity and work, and non-serious adverse events. The analysis included both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevManWeb. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using predefined domains, graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-five completed trials were included, of which 76 trials contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. This included a total of 4957 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (2803 participants) and control (2154 participants). Most trials only included participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and those who were at low anaesthetic risk (ASA I and II). The most commonly used local anaesthetic agent was bupivacaine. Methods of instilling the local anaesthetic varied considerably between trials; this included location and timing of application. The control groups received 0.9% normal saline (69 trials), no intervention (six trials), or sterile water (two trials). One trial did not specify the control agent used. None of the trials provided information on follow-up beyond point of discharge from hospital. Only two trials were at low risk of bias. Seven trials received external funding, of these three were assessed to be at risk of conflicts of interest, a further 17 trials declared no funding. We are very uncertain about the effect intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control on mortality; zero mortalities in either group (8 trials; 446 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.34); 13 trials; 988 participants; discharge on same day of surgery (RR 1.43; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.20; 3 trials; 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of hospital stay (MD -0.10 days; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.01; 12 trials; 936 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on health-related quality of life, return to normal activity or return to work. Pain scores, as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), were lower in the intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation group compared to the control group at both four to eight hours (MD -0.99 cm VAS; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.79; 57 trials; 4046 participants; low-certainty of evidence) and nine to 24 hours (MD -0.68 cm VAS; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49; 52 trials; 3588 participants; low-certainty of evidence). In addition, we found two trials that were still ongoing, and one trial that was completed but with no published results. All three trials are registered on the WHO trial register.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and proportion of patients discharged on the same day of surgery because the certainty of evidence was very low. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude an increase in adverse events. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of stay in hospital after surgery. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic may reduce pain at up to 24 hours for low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be at low risk of systematic and random errors, should fully report mortality and side effects, and should focus on clinical outcomes such as quality of life.

Updates on Wound Infiltration Use for Postoperative Pain Management: A Narrative Review

Local anesthetic wound infiltration (WI) provides anesthesia for minor surgical procedures and improves postoperative analgesia as part of multimodal analgesia after general or regional anesthesia. Although pre-incisional block is preferable, in practice WI is usually done at the end of surgery. WI performed as a continuous modality reduces analgesics, prolongs the duration of analgesia, and enhances the patient’s mobilization in some cases. WI benefits are documented in open abdominal surgeries (Caesarean section, colorectal surgery, abdominal hysterectomy, herniorrhaphy), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, oncological breast surgeries, laminectomy, hallux valgus surgery, and radical prostatectomy. Surgical site infiltration requires knowledge of anatomy and the pain origin for a procedure, systematic extensive infiltration of local anesthetic in various tissue planes under direct visualization before wound closure or subcutaneously along the incision. Because the incidence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity is 11% after subcutaneous WI, appropriate local anesthetic dosing is crucial. The risk of wound infection is related to the infection incidence after each particular surgery. For WI to fully meet patient and physician expectations, mastery of the technique, patient education, appropriate local anesthetic dosing and management of the surgical wound with “aseptic, non-touch” technique are needed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors which reduce the length of stay associated with elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe ambulatory procedure in appropriately selected patients; however, day case rates remain low. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify interventions which are effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) or improving the day case rate for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Comparative English-language studies describing perioperative interventions applicable to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adult patients and their impact on LOS or day case rate were included.

RESULTS

Quantitative data were available for meta-analysis from 80 studies of 10,615 patients. There were an additional 17 studies included for systematic review. The included studies evaluated 14 peri-operative interventions. Implementation of a formal day case care pathway was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (MD = 24.9 h, 95% CI, 18.7-31.2, p < 0.001) and an improved day case rate (OR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.1, p = 0.005). Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, dexamethasone and prophylactic antibiotics were associated with smaller reductions in LOS.

CONCLUSION

Care pathway implementation demonstrated a significant impact on LOS and day case rates. A limited effect was noted for smaller independent interventions. In order to achieve optimal day case targets, a greater understanding of the effective elements of a care pathway and local barriers to implementation is required.

Feasibility of Routine Ambulatory Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Brazil

Background and Objectives

In several developed countries, most laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) are performed as an ambulatory operation (ALC) with a high rate of success. In Latin America, the experience with this procedure is still limited. Our objective is to evaluate the feasibility to implement ALC in a Brazilian teaching hospital.

Methods

Data obtained from electronic medical records and study protocols of all patients who underwent an LC between January 2011 and March 2018 were evaluated. All patients with chronic or acute cholecystitis were initially considered for an ALC.

Results

Of a total of 1645 patients who underwent LC, 1577 (95.9%) were discharged on the same day of the operation. The main reasons for hospital admission after ALC were patient refusal to be discharged (n = 23; 1.4%), nausea and vomiting (n = 15; 0.9%), and complicated acute cholecystitis. No patient was excluded from consideration for ALC based only on age, history of previous upper abdominal operation, and presence of comorbidity. Patient age ranged from 12 to 100 years, with a mean of 50.23 ± 15.35 years. Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were 0.4% and 5.5%, respectively. Most perioperative complications were because of technical surgical difficulties and complications common to most abdominal operations (surgical site, pulmonary, urinary, and venous complications). Thirteen (0.8%) patients were readmitted to the hospital because of abdominal pain and fever (n = 4), pneumonia (n = 3), deep venous thrombosis (n = 3), or urinary retention (n = 3).

Conclusions

ALC may be performed in Brazil with low rates of morbidity, mortality, and hospital readmission. Its implementation should be stimulated in Latin America.

Increasing success in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy by an optimal clinical pathway

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of more convincing and reassuring remarks from the surgeon in the preoperative consult associated with a dedicated outpatient facility to increase our rate of success in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A one-centre prospective clinical study was conducted between February 2013 and May 2015. During the first time period (February 2013-March 2014), patients were hospitalized in conventional care unit and given the possibility to choose an outpatient procedure. In the second phase (April 2014-May 2015), the patients were held in a dedicated outpatient facility. Outpatient success rate was evaluated using Chung's discharge score 6 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were included (30 in a traditional setting, 50 in an optimal clinical pathway). Both groups were comparable for mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and mean operative time (P = 0.36, P = 1 and P = 0.09, respectively). Success in outpatient surgery was significantly higher in the optimal clinical pathway group (73.3% versus 96%, P = 0.005). The only criteria which was significantly improved in Chung score was perambulation (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups for post-operative complications (P = 0.28) or readmission (P = 1).

CONCLUSION

Optimal clinical pathway (more convincing and reassuring remarks in the preoperative consult and a dedicated outpatient facility) is the key to increase success in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Randomized controlled study of intraincisional infiltration versus intraperitoneal instillation of standardized dose of ropivacaine 0.2% in post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain: Do we really need high doses of local anesthetics-time to rethink!

BACKGROUND

Earlier studies done to compare the efficacy of use of local anesthetics at intraperitoneal location versus intraincisional use had utilized equal amount of drugs at the two locations, usually 10-20 ml. Using this large amount of drug in the small space of intraincisional location as compared to similar amount of drug in large intraperitoneal space created an inadvertent bias in favor of patients receiving the drug intraincisionally so these patients naturally experienced less pain.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To conduct a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study by standardizing dose of local anesthetic, to compare the effectiveness of intraperitoneal against intraincisional use of ropivacaine 0.2% for post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain relief.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

294 patients underwent elective 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were triple blindly randomized. All patients received ~ 23 ml of solution, of which 20 ml was given intraperitoneally (1 ml/cm; 16 ml along right hemi-dome and 4 ml in gall bladder fossa) and ~ 3 ml intraincisionally (1 ml/cm of length of incision). Solution was either normal saline or drug (0.2% ropivacaine) depending on the group [controls (n = 86), intraperitoneal group (n = 100), and intraincisional group (n = 108)]. 5 different pain scales were used for assessment of overall pain. Pain scores were assessed at 5 points of time.

RESULTS

Patients in intraincisional group showed significantly less overall pain and rescue analgesia requirement (p < 0.05). Intraincisional group showed significantly less overall pain (p < 0.05) as compared to intraperitoneal group; however, use of rescue analgesia was comparable in the two groups (p > 0.05); and shoulder pain was significantly less in intraperitoneal group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The intraincisional use of injection ropivacaine at its minimum concentration of 0.2% in minimal doses of 1 ml/cm at the end of procedure provides significantly more post-operative analgesia as compared to intraperitoneal group and controls. However, for controlling shoulder pain, the use of intraperitoneal ropivacaine is desirable.