Repeated intraperitoneal instillation of levobupivacaine for the management of pain 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 We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021.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.

Effect of Adding Hydrocortisone to Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery

Background:

Bariatric surgery is the effective management of obesity; however, postoperative pain is associated with a great morbidity. The management of pain is important for the enhancement of patient recovery. Local anesthetics can be injected during laparoscopic surgery into the peritoneum throughout the ports produced either before the beginning of laparoscopy or before the closure of the wound to reduce postoperative pain. Our aim is to evaluate if there is an additive analgesic effect by the administration of intraperitoneal hydrocortisone with streamed intraperitoneal bupivacaine as a method of postoperative pain relief in laparoscopic bariatric surgeries.

Patients and Methods:

One hundred patients listed for laparoscopic bariatric surgery were the subject of this study. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group I received 100 mg of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine plus 20 mL normal saline intraperitoneally and Group II received intraperitoneal 100 mg of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine + 100 mg hydrocortisone + 20 mL of saline at the end of the laparoscopic procedure. The primary outcome was the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for pain. The secondary outcomes were the time of first analgesic request, total opioid requirement, heart rate, and mean blood pressure.

Results:

VAS showed a significant decrease at 4, 6, and 12 h postoperative in Group II compared to Group I. There was a marked decrease in total meperidine requirement with prolonged time of the first analgesic request in Group II compared to Group I.

Conclusion:

Intraperitoneal hydrocortisone with bupivacaine had improved postoperative pain relief with a decrease in analgesic requirement.

High-Volume, Low-Concentration Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine Study in Emergency Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blinded, Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) often results in postoperative pain, especially in the abdomen. Intraperitoneal local anesthesia (IPLA) reduces pain after LC. Acute cholecystitis-associated inflammation, increased gallbladder wall thickness, dissection difficulties, and a longer operative time are several reasons for assuming a benefit in pain scores in urgent LC with IPLA application. The aim was to determine the postoperative analgesic efficacy of high-volume, low-dose intraperitoneal bupivacaine in urgent LC. Materials and Methods. Fifty-seven patients who were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II were randomly assigned to receive either normal saline (control group) or intraperitoneal bupivacaine (test group) at the beginning or end of urgent LC. The primary outcome was the postoperative pain score of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes included Visual Rating Prince Henry Scale (VRS), patient satisfaction, and analgesic consumption. Results. Postoperative VAS scores at the first and fourth hours were significantly lower in the test group than in the control group (P < .001). Postoperative VRS scores at the first, fourth, and eighth hours were significantly lower in the test group than in the control group (P < .001, P = .002, P = .004, respectively). Analgesic use was significantly higher in the control group at the first postoperative hour (P < .001). Shoulder pain was significantly lower, and patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the test group relative to the control group (both P < .001). Conclusion. High-volume, low-concentration intraperitoneal bupivacaine resulted in better postoperative pain control and reduced incidence of shoulder pain and analgesic consumption in urgent LC.

The Impact of Intraperitoneal Levobupivacaine on Pain Relief After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

INTRODUCTION

The influence of intraperitoneal levobupivacaine on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the impact of intraperitoneal levobupivacaine versus placebo on pain intensity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through March 2019 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of intraperitoneal levobupivacaine versus placebo on pain intensity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with the control group after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraperitoneal levobupivacaine is associated with substantially reduced pain scores at 2 hours [standard mean difference (SMD)=-0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.04 to -0.37; P<0.0001], 4 hours (SMD=-0.61; 95% CI=-0.90 to -0.32; P<0.0001), and 12 hours postoperatively (SMD=-0.31; 95% CI=-0.60 to -0.03; P=0.03), and analgesic requirement (SMD=-0.83; 95% CI=-1.48 to -0.19; P=0.01), but reveals no obvious impact on pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively (SMD=0.09; 95% CI=-0.64 to 0.83; P=0.80) and the incidence of nausea or vomiting (risk ratio=0.69; 95% CI=0.40-1.20; P=0.19). Total adverse events in the levobupivacaine group seem to be lower than that in the control group (risk ratio=0.57; 95% CI=0.38-0.85; P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Intraperitoneal levobupivacaine provides additional benefits for pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Intraperitoneal Levobupivacaine Alone or with Dexmedetomidine for Postoperative Analgesia after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background and Aims:

Local anesthetic injection in the peritoneal cavity decreases intensity of postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgeries. We compared adding dexmedetomidine to intraperitoneal levobupivacaine in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods:

A total of 105 patients were included in this prospective, double-blinded, randomized study. Patients were randomly divided into three equal sized (n = 35) study groups. Group C patients received intraperitoneal 40 ml normal saline as controlled group. Group L was given 40 ml 0.25% levobupivacaine. Group LD received 40 ml 0.25% levobupivacaine + dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg. The degree of postoperative pain was measured by visual analog scale (VAS) score. The time of first analgesic demand was recorded and also total dose of painkiller in the first 24 h and postoperative complications were collected. SPSS version 16 was used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Postoperative VAS at different time intervals was significantly lower, time to the first demand of painkiller (min) was longer (30.2 ± 14.4, 45.9 ± 20.1, and 56.5 ± 13.2), and total painkiller consumption (mg) was lower (203.5 ± 42.9, 117.8 ± 63.7, and 46.3 ± 41.3) in Group LD than Group L than Group C.

Conclusion:

Adding dexmedetomidine to intraperitoneal levobupivacaine is superior to and gives better results than levobupivacaine alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Harmonic Scalpel versus Monopolar Electrocauterization in Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using surgical electrocautery is considered to be the gold standard procedure for the treatment of uncomplicated cholecystitis and cholelithiasis. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Harmonic scalpel, an advanced laparoscopic technique associated with less thermal damage in LC, when compared to electrocautery.

METHODS

From October 2010 through June 2013, a total of 198 patients were randomly allocated to LC with a Harmonic scalpel (experimental group, 117 patients) or conventional monopolar electrocautery (control group, 81 patients). The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion to laparotomy, postoperative hospital stay, post-LC pain, and cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were comparable with respect to baseline patient characteristics. When compared to conventional monopolar electrocautery, there were no significant reductions in the operative time, bleeding, frequency of conversion to laparotomy, and duration of postoperative recovery with the Harmonic scalpel (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using conventional monopolar electrocautery is as effective and safe as that with the Harmonic scalpel, for treating uncomplicated cholecystitis and cholelithiasis.

Intraperitoneal Levobupivacaine with or without Clonidine for Pain Relief after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Irrigation of local anesthetic intraperitoneally in combination with opioids and non-opioids agents has been used to provide pain relief with varying success in laparoscopic surgeries. This randomized double blind placebo controlled study is designed to study the effect of intraperitoneal instillation of levo-bupivacaine along with clonidine for pain relief after laparascopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

75 patients were randomized to receive 20 ml of 0.9% normal saline as placebo (group I), 20 ml of 0.5% levo bupivacaine (group II) and 20 ml of 0.5% levo bupivacaine with 1mcg/kg clonidine (group III) intraperitoneally. The degree of postoperative pain was assessed using the VAS and VRS on the immediate arrival in the recovery room after surgery and thereafter at 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours, postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed with ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Wilcoxon matched pairs rank test was used and P < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

VAS was maximum in placebo (group I) than in levobupivacaine alone (group II) and was minimum in levobupivacaine with clonidine (group III) at all time intervals. The difference between group I and II is statistically significant at immediate and at 2 hours postoperatively but no difference were found between group I and II after 2 hour. However, there is statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between group I and III and group II and III at all time intervals.

CONCLUSION

Intraperitoneal instillation of levobupivacaine along with clonidine in a dose of 1mcg/kg is superior to levobupivacaine alone without having any significant adverse effects.

Comparison of 0.25% Ropivacaine for Intraperitoneal Instillation v/s Rectus Sheath Block for Postoperative Pain Relief Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

As Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is not a totally pain free procedure, with the pain being most intense on the day of surgery and on the following day. Various techniques are available for postoperative pain relief like intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetics and rectus sheath block (RSB)which may provide effective pain relief.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of preemptive administration (initiated before the surgical procedure) of intraperitoneal instillation and rectus sheath block using ropivacaine for postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 75 selected patients were randomly assigned to three equal groups as Group R, who received bilateral RSB with 0.25 % ropivacaine 15 ml on either side; Group I, who received intraperitoneal instillation of 0.25% ropivacaine 50 ml and Group C (Control group), who received only rescue analgesic on pain. These were compared regarding postoperative analgesia in terms of Visual Analog Scale (0-10 cm), Prince Henry Hospital Pain Score (0-3), time to first dose of rescue analgesic (tramadol), total rescue analgesic consumption in 48 hours, patient satisfaction scores (1-7) and adverse effects.

RESULTS

The time to first rescue analgesic was significantly longer in Group R (16.16±4.73h) and Group I (7.84±1.34h) as compared to Group C (1.72±0.67h), p<0.001. Mean tramadol consumption in 48h for each patient was significantly less in Group R (148±54.92mg) and Group I (202±33.78mg) as compared to Group C (298±22.73mg) p<0.001. Postoperative pain scores were also significantly less in Group R and Group I as compared to Group C during first 6 hours, p<0.05. The difference in above parameters was also significant between Group R and Group I, p<0.05. Thus order of postoperative analgesia effect was: Group R > Group I > Group C. Rescue analgesic requirement showed a 32.21% reduction in Group I and 50.33% reduction in Group R as compared to Group C. Patient Satisfaction Scores (PSS) showed a significant difference among groups with acceptable PSS scores as: Group R (92%) v/s Group I (40%) v/s Group C (20%) p<0.001.

CONCLUSION

Pre-emptive administration of rectus sheath block or intraperitoneal instillation of 0.25% ropivacaine was found effective in providing better postoperative analgesia as compared to control group after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Among these two techniques, rectus sheath block was found to be superior over intraperitoneal instillation.

Intraperitoneal bupivacaine alone or with dexmedetomidine or tramadol for post-operative analgesia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparative evaluation

Background and Aims:

Intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetics has been shown to minimise post-operative pain after laparoscopic surgeries. We compared the antinociceptive effects of intraperitoneal dexmedetomidine or tramadol combined with bupivacaine to intraperitoneal bupivacaine alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods:

A total of 120 patients were included in this prospective, double-blind, randomised study. Patients were randomly divided into three equal sized (n = 40) study groups. Patients received intraperitoneal bupivacaine 50 ml 0.25% +5 ml normal saline (NS) in Group B, bupivacaine 50 ml 0.25% + tramadol 1 mg/kg (diluted in 5 ml NS) in Group BT and bupivacaine 50 ml 0.25% + dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg, (diluted in 5 ml NS) in Group BD before removal of trocar at the end of surgery. The quality of analgesia was assessed by visual analogue scale score (VAS). Time to the first request of analgesia, total dose of analgesic in the first 24 h and adverse effects were noted. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft (MS) Office Excel Software with the Student's t-test and Chi-square test (level of significance P = 0.05).

Results:

VAS at different time intervals, overall VAS in 24 h was significantly lower (1.80 ± 0.36, 3.01 ± 0.48, 4.5 ± 0.92), time to first request of analgesia (min) was longest (128 ± 20, 118 ± 22, 55 ± 18) and total analgesic consumption (mg) was lowest (45 ± 15, 85 ± 35, 175 ± 75) in Group BD than Group BT and Group B.

Conclusion:

Intraperitoneal instillation of bupivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine is superior to bupivacaine alone and may be better than bupivacaine with tramadol.

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

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery and overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review with regards to benefits while we considered quasi-randomised studies and non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 58 trials, of which 48 trials with 2849 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (1558 participants) versus control (1291 participants) contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. All the trials except one trial with 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various intraperitoneal local anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine in the liquid form was the most common local anaesthetic used. There were considerable differences in the methods of local anaesthetic instillation including the location (subdiaphragmatic, gallbladder bed, or both locations) and timing (before or after the removal of gallbladder) between the trials. There was no mortality in either group in the eight trials that reported mortality (0/236 (0%) in local anaesthetic instillation versus 0/210 (0%) in control group; very low quality evidence). One participant experienced the outcome of serious morbidity (eight trials; 446 participants; 1/236 (0.4%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 0/210 (0%) in the control group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; very low quality evidence). Although the remaining trials did not report the overall morbidity, three trials (190 participants) reported that there were no intra-operative complications. Twenty trials reported that there were no serious adverse events in any of the 715 participants who received local anaesthetic instillation. None of the trials reported participant quality of life, return to normal activity, or return to work.The effect of local anaesthetic instillation on the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with benefit and no difference of intervention (three trials; 242 participants; 89/160 (adjusted proportion 61.0%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 40/82 (48.8%) in control group; RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58; very low quality evidence). The MD in length of hospital stay was 0.04 days (95% CI -0.23 to 0.32; five trials; 335 participants; low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the local anaesthetic instillation group than the control group at four to eight hours (32 trials; 2020 participants; MD -0.99 cm; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.88 on a VAS scale of 0 to 10 cm; very low quality evidence) and at nine to 24 hours (29 trials; 1787 participants; MD -0.53 cm; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.44; very low quality evidence). Various subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the influence of the different local anaesthetic agents, different methods of local anaesthetic instillation, and different controls on the effectiveness of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation were inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that it reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is unknown and likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Intraincisional vs intraperitoneal infiltration of local anaesthetic for controlling early post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain

BACKGROUND:

The study was designed to compare the effect of intraincisional vs intraperitoneal infiltration of levobupivacaine 0.25% on post-operative pain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This randomised controlled study was carried out on 189 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Group 1 was the control group and did not receive either intraperitoneal or intraincisional levobupivacaine. Group 2 was assigned to receive local infiltration (intraincisional) of 20 ml solution of levobupivacaine 0.25%, while Group 3 received 20 ml solution of levobupivacaine 0.25% intraperitoneally. Post-operative pain was recorded for 24 hours post-operatively.

RESULTS:

Post-operative abdominal pain was significantly lower with intraincisional infiltration of levobupivacaine 0.25% in group 2. This difference was reported from 30 minutes till 24 hours post-operatively. Right shoulder pain showed significantly lower incidence in group 2 and group 3 compared to control group. Although statistically insignificant, shoulder pain was less in group 3 than group 2.

CONCLUSION:

Intraincisional infiltration of levobupivacaine is more effective than intraperitoneal route in controlling post-operative abdominal pain. It decreases the need for rescue analgesia.

Intraperitoneal ropivacaine nebulization for pain management after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison with intraperitoneal instillation

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating intraperitoneal local anesthetic instillation for pain relief after laparoscopic procedures have reported conflicting results. In this randomized, double-blind study we assessed the effects of intraperitoneal local anesthetic nebulization on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly assigned to receive either instillation of ropivacaine 0.5%, 20 mL after induction of the pneumoperitoneum, or nebulization of ropivacaine 1%, 3 mL before and after surgery. Anesthetic and surgical techniques were standardized. Degree of pain at rest and on deep breathing, incidence of shoulder pain, morphine consumption, unassisted walking time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were evaluated at 6, 24, and 48 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients included, 3 exclusions occurred for conversion to open surgery. There were no differences between groups in pain scores or in morphine consumption. No patients in the nebulization group presented significant shoulder pain in comparison with 83% of patients in the instillation group (absolute risk reduction -83, 95% CI -97 to -70, P<0.001). Nineteen (70%) patients receiving nebulization walked without assistance within 12 hours after surgery in comparison with 14 (47%) patients receiving instillation (absolute risk reduction -24, 95% CI -48 to 1, P=0.04). One (3%) patient in the instillation group vomited in comparison with 6 (22%) patients in the nebulization group (absolute risk reduction -19%, 95% CI -36 to -2, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraperitoneal ropivacaine nebulization was associated with reduced shoulder pain and unassisted walking time but with an increased incidence of postoperative vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Randomized clinical trial of combined preincisional infiltration and intraperitoneal instillation of levobupivacaine for postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is one of the main reasons for a prolonged hospital stay after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Reduced postoperative pain might result in faster recovery and establish LC as a day-care surgical procedure. Peroperative local anaesthesia has been suggested to reduce postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of combined subcutaneous infiltration and intraperitoneal instillation of levobupivacaine before the start of LC on postoperative abdominal pain up to 24 h after surgery.

METHODS

Patients eligible for elective LC were randomized to receive preincisional infiltration and preoperative intraperitoneal instillation of 80 ml of either 0·125 per cent levobupivacaine (experimental group) or normal saline (placebo group). The primary outcome measure was abdominal pain estimated by means of a visual analogue scale at 0·5, 2, 4, 8 and 24 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Eighty of the 101 patients assessed for eligibility were randomized. There was no significant reduction in postoperative abdominal pain with levobupivacaine compared with placebo during the 24-h follow-up; the overall difference in pain score was 2·2 (95 per cent confidence interval - 4·9 to 9·3; P = 0·540). The duration of operation, use of anaesthesia, use of rescue analgesia, shoulder pain, duration of hospital stay and time to resumption of normal daily activities did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Combined subcutaneous and intraperitoneal administration of levobupivacaine did not influence postoperative abdominal pain after LC.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01199406 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Intraperitoneal use of local anesthetic in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

With the advent of minimally invasive gallbladder surgery, and now with natural orifice techniques emerging, visceral nociception has been neglected as a cause of postoperative pain. A systematic review and metaanalysis was carried out to investigate the use of intraperitoneal local anesthetic (IPLA) in order to assess its role in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the clinical effects of this modality.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were conducted independently without language restriction. Studies were identified from the following databases from inception to September 2009: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR), Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL). Relevant meeting abstracts and reference lists were manually searched. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Thirty randomized controlled trials were identified for review. The clinical heterogeneity of IPLA use was high. However, there appeared to be reduced pain, opioid use, and need for rescue analgesia, and reduced postoperative cortisol and glucose responses.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence in favor of IPLA in LC. Further trials of this modality in LC are not needed as these are unlikely to reduce clinical heterogeneity. IPLA should be trialled as future minimally invasive surgical techniques approach.