A retrospective review of the type of anaesthesia used for LLETZ: proposal for a categorisation audit tool

Loop Excision for Precancers of the Uterine Cervix: Local or General Anaesthetic?

Aim

In Germany, treatment of HSIL or AIS of the uterine cervix by loop excision is performed almost exclusively under general anaesthesia (GA). International studies and guidelines show high acceptance of local anaesthesia (LA) due to hermeneutic, medical, and economic factors. We performed an observational comparative study aiming to prove advantages of local anaesthesia within the German health system.

Patients and Methods

In a prospective observational study, patients diagnosed with HSIL or AIS of the uterine cervix were treated at the Institute for Cytology and Dysplasia, Berlin, by loop excision in 2021. We started with a feasibility study : 303 patients diagnosed with HSIL/AIS of the uterine cervix and her colposcopist answered an electronic questionnaire with respect to loop excision under LA. Since we found a high acceptance for LA in patients and colposcopists, we initiated a comparative study LA vs. GA: 322 patients underwent loop excision and selected their mode of anaesthesia: n = 206 LA vs. n = 116 GA. 114 patients of the feasibility study had to undergo loop excision and became part of the comparative study (n = 79 for the LA group, n = 35 for the GA group). All patients received a standardised questionnaire to document their pain score within 24 h after treatment on a visual analogue scale, i.e. VAS, between 0 and 100. 178 patients of the LA group and 80 patients of the GA group completed and returned the questionnaire and form the cohort for our comparison of LA vs. GA. With 191 of these 258 patients, i.e. 74%, a telephone survey was performed to ask for patient satisfaction and the rates of recurrence after a mean interval of 1 year post surgery. We postulate that there will be no clinically relevant significant difference in satisfaction and postoperative pain between patients in the LA group and the GA group.

Results

In the feasibility study , 90% (272 of 303) of patients diagnosed with HSIL or AIS were considered eligible for LA by their colposcopists. 75% (227 of 303) of patients were open to loop excision under LA. In the comparative study , 63 of 206 women of the LA group were interviewed preoperatively: 89% would accept a pain score above 20 during the procedure, 33% a pain score above 50 and 11% of max. 20. Postoperatively, the median VAS pain score for loop excision under local anaesthesia was 13.1 in 178 patients, and pain during injection of local anaesthesia was 20.9 (p < 0.001). The VAS pain score 20 minutes post surgery did not differ significantly between 178 patients after local anaesthesia versus 80 patients after general anaesthesia (p = 0.09). The surgeons estimated the patient's pain significantly less than the patients themselves with an underestimate of -14.63 points on the VAS (p < 0.001). Within 7 days following loop excision under LA, 95.5% of 178 patients would choose local anaesthesia as their preferred method for a potential repeat loop excision, 8.8% of which would like additional painkillers, and 4.5% would choose general anaesthesia.In a telephone follow-up survey of 133 women from the LA group after a mean of 12 months post surgery, 97% were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the treatment carried out. For patient satisfaction and postoperative pain, no clinically relevant significant difference was seen between the LA and the GA group.The rate of secondary bleeding (6.7% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.72), recurrence of HSIL/AIS (3.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.62), and the distribution of the histopathological R status (R0 89.5% vs. 81.1%, p = 0.73; R1 5.3% vs.12.2%, p = 0.57, Rx 4.1% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.65) showed no significant difference when comparing the LA group versus the GA group.

Conclusion

Following loop excision under local anaesthesia, more than 95% of patients would choose this method again for repeat surgery. One year post surgery, 97% of the patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the treatment under local anaesthesia. Offering local anaesthesia for loop excision to patients should be mandatory and included in current guidelines.

Influence of General and Local Anesthesia on Postoperative Pain After a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient satisfaction, histopathologic results, and short-term morbidity in patients undergoing loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) under local anesthesia (LA) versus general anesthesia (GA).

METHODS

Participants who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the LA group or GA group. Pain was determined by both objective (faces pain scale-revised) and subjective (visual analog scale score) methods.

RESULTS

Data from 244 patients (123 in the LA group and 121 in the GA group) were analyzed. The median cone volume was 2.0 (0.4-4.7) cm 3 in the LA group and 2.4 (0.3-4.8) cm 3 in the GA group. There was no difference in margin involvement or repeat conization between the groups. The procedure time, time to complete hemostasis, intraoperative blood loss, and early postoperative blood loss were similar between the groups. The visual analog scale scores were higher in the LA group at 1, 2, and 4 hours postoperatively, but the differences between the groups were not significant. In addition, the median faces pain scale-revised scores at 1, 2, and 4 hours postoperatively were not significantly different between the LA and GA groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed no difference in pain during the postoperative period, need for additional analgesia, volume of the extracted cone specimens, rate of positive surgical margin, bleeding volume, or operation time in women undergoing loop electrosurgical excision procedure under LA versus GA.

Recurrent Dysplasia After a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: Local Versus General Anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the rates of positive specimen margins and postconization recurrent dysplasia between loop electrosurgical excision procedures (LEEPs) performed under general anesthesia (GA) and LEEP under local anesthesia (LA).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive women who underwent LEEP between 2011 and 2019. Collected data included demographics, LEEP indication, cone dimensions, and margin involvement as well as recurrence rate. Women who had undergone previous conization, cold-knife conization, or those who were lost to follow-up during the first 2 years after the procedure were excluded.

RESULTS

Overall, 71 women who underwent LEEP under GA and 75 women under LA were included. Demographic characteristics were similar between the groups, as were the rates of preceding abnormal cytology and high-grade dysplasia before conization. Although cone depth and volume were higher for LEEP specimens done under GA compared with LA, the rate of positive specimen margins was comparable both for the endocervical margin (16/71 [22.5%] vs 16/75 [21.3%], respectively; p = .861) and the ectocervical margin (14/71 [19.7%] vs 11/75 [14.7%], respectively; p = .418). During the first 2 years after conization, the rates of high-grade dysplasia (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia ≥ 2) in repeat biopsy and the need for repeat conization were also not significantly different between the GA and LA groups (4.2% vs 1.3%, p = .356; 7.0% vs 9.3%, p = .614, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia mode does not seem to affect the rate of positive LEEP margins and the need for repeat conization. Our study findings suggest that LA should be preferred instead of GA in LEEP.

Syringe or mask? Loop electrosurgical excision procedure under local or general anesthesia: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Loop electrosurgical excision procedure may be performed under local anesthesia or general anesthesia, and practice patterns differ worldwide. No randomized head-to-head comparison has been published to confirm or refute either practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare loop electrosurgical excision procedure under local anesthesia vs general anesthesia regarding patient satisfaction and procedure-related outcomes such as rates of involved margins, complications, pain, and blood loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive women referred to our colposcopy unit were recruited. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure was performed under local anesthesia with 4 intracervical injections of bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% or under general anesthesia with fentanyl, propofol, and a laryngeal mask with sevoflurane maintenance. The primary endpoint was patient satisfaction assessed on the day of surgery and 14 days thereafter using a Likert scale (score 0-100) and a questionnaire. Secondary endpoints included rates of involved margins, procedure-related complications, pain, blood loss, and surgeon preference. Results were compared using nonparametric and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Between July 2018 and February 2020, we randomized 208 women, 108 in the local anesthesia arm and 100 in the general anesthesia arm. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patient satisfaction did not differ between the study groups directly after surgery (Likert scale 100 [90-100] vs 100 [90-100]; P=.077) and 14 days thereafter (Likert scale 100 [80-100] vs 100 [90-100]; P=.079). In the per-protocol analysis, women in the local anesthesia arm had significantly smaller cone volumes (1.11 cm³ [0.70-1.83] vs 1.58 cm³ [1.08-2.69], respectively; P<.001), less intraoperative blood loss (Δhemoglobin, 0.2 g/dL [-0.1 to 0.4] vs 0.5 g/dL [0.2-0.9]; P<.001), and higher satisfaction after 14 days (100 [90-100] vs 100 [80-100]; P=.026), whereas surgeon preference favored general anesthesia (90 [79-100] vs 100 [90-100], respectively; P=.001). All other secondary outcomes did not differ between groups (resection margin status R1, 6.6% vs 2.1% [P=.26]; cone fragmentation, 12.1% vs 6.3% [P=.27]; procedure duration, 151.5 seconds [120-219.5] vs 180 seconds [117-241.5] [P=.34]; time to complete hemostasis, 60 seconds [34-97] vs 70 seconds [48.25-122.25] [P=.08]; complication rate, 3.3% vs 1.1% [P=.59]). In a multivariate analysis, parity (P=.03), type of transformation zone (P=.03), and cone volume (P=.02) and not study group assignment, age, body mass index, and degree of dysplasia independently influenced the primary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Loop electrosurgical excision procedure under local anesthesia is equally well tolerated and offers patient-reported and procedure-related benefits over general anesthesia, supporting the preferred practice in some institutions and refuting the preferred practice in others.