Intraperitoneal normal saline and bupivacaine infusion for reduction of postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC. 1998;8:416-420. [PMID: 9864106 DOI: 10.1097/00019509-199812000-00003]

Defining the role of thoracic spinal anaesthesia in the 21st century: a narrative review

Since the performance of the first thoracic spinal anaesthetic in early 1908 many anaesthetists have gained interest in this unorthodox neuraxial anaesthetic technique. The main rationale justifying its use is to prevent complications related to general anaesthesia in high-risk patient populations. There is, however, significant debate regarding this practice around the world. The main concerns are fear of iatrogenic injury to the spinal cord, cephalad spread of local anaesthetic causing a complete spinal block, and haemodynamic instability owing to blockade of cardioaccelerator sympathetic fibres. The purpose of this narrative review is to appraise the literature critically regarding thoracic spinal anaesthesia, to synthesise the available information, and to provide a summary of evidence justifying its use in modern anaesthesia.

A prospective randomized controlled study on the role of restoring liver diaphragm surface tension and pain control at port sites in optimizing pain management following laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Introduction

After laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), pain is still a significant concern leading to extended hospital stays or readmissions. A standardized strategy is needed to offer effective pain relief postoperatively. The pain in the early postoperative period is mainly due to elimination of intraperitoneal surface tension. The aim of this study is to evaluate the restoration of intraabdominal surface tension and the use of bupivacaine-soaked tachosil to control parietal abdominal pain at the port sites to optimize postoperative pain management.

Patients and methods

Between March 2020 to December 2021, 816 patients undergoing LC were randomized into two groups after exclusion of 12 patients: Group A-interventional contained 402 patients; Group B-control contained 402 patients. Data to be compared were made in terms of operative time, shoulder pain, upper abdominal pain, and number of analgesic doses and hospital stay. Pain intensity was assessed by using the visual analog scale.

Results

There was no significant variation in the demographic data between the two groups. There was significant statistical difference between Groups (A) and (B) regarding severity of shoulder pain and port site pain and number of analgesic doses and hospital stay in favor of Group (A). The results were evaluated within 95% confidence intervals and significance was determined as P < .05.

Conclusion

The restoration of intraabdominal surface tension by absorbing as much CO2 as possible at the end of laparoscopic cholecystectomy via the epigastric port route, as well as the use of bupivacaine-soaked tachosil to control parietal abdominal pain at the port sites; both steps significantly improved postoperative pain management, reduced the number of analgesic doses, and decreased the length of hospital stay.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetics in Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intraperitoneal local anesthetics have been increasingly used nowadays. However, they are not routinely given in laparoscopic appendectomy and a lot of controversies are found about their administration in this procedure. The goal of this study is to review effectiveness and safety of intraperitoneal local anesthetics in laparoscopic appendectomy. We conducted a computer search of four authentic databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared intraperitoneal local anesthetics versus control group in laparoscopic appendectomy. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled in a meta-analysis model using RevMan software. We evaluated post-operative pain in different periods and safety outcomes including postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and shoulder pain. Furthermore, we assessed the length of hospital stay and postoperative opioid consumption within 24 hours. Seven RCTs were included with a total of 579 patients in this review. Our analysis indicated a significant difference in postoperative pain at different durations preferring intraperitoneal local anesthetics compared to control. Moreover, intraperitoneal local anesthetics were significantly linked to fewer patients experienced PONV and shoulder pain respectively (RR= 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.50], p < 0.0001), (RR= 0.32, 95% CI [0.17, 0.58], p = 0.0002). We found less hospital stay duration in intraperitoneal local anesthetics group after removal of the heterogeneity (MD= -0.39, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.16], p = 0.001). Intraperitoneal local anesthetics were significantly linked to less postoperative opioid consumption (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.24], p = 0.001). Intraperitoneal local anesthetics can be routinely used in laparoscopic appendectomy as it is associated with less postoperative pain and reduction in different adverse events postoperatively.

Assessment of a Combination of Clinical Maneuvers in Evaluation of Post-Laparoscopic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

To assess the efficacy of the combined maneuvers in evaluation of post-laparoscopic pain.

Material and Methods

A randomized controlled study was conducted. Sixty-four women were included in the study and were randomly divided into two groups. Intervention group received combined maneuvers such as intraperitoneal normal saline infusion, pulmonary recruitment maneuver and local bupivacaine instillation at port sites after laparoscopic surgery. Control group received routine care.

Main Outcome Measures

Upper abdominal pain, shoulder pain and incision site pain were noted in both groups at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h postoperatively.

Results

The median interquartile range (in centiles) of upper abdominal pain score 3, 6 and 12 h postoperatively in the intervention group was 1.0 (0.25-1.0), 1.0 (0.0-1.0) and 0.50 (0.0-1.0), and in the control group, the values were 2.0 (2.0-1.0), 2.0 (2.0-1.0) and 1.0 (0-1.0) at 3, 6 and 12 h, respectively (p < 0.000). The median interquartile range of shoulder pain score 3, 6 and 12 h postoperatively in the intervention group was 0.0 (0.0-1.0), 0.0 (0.0-0.75) and 0.0 (0.0-1.0), and in the control group, the values were 1.0 (0.0-2.0), 1.0 (0.0-1.75) and 1.0 (0-1.0) at 3, 6, and 12 h. The upper abdominal pain and shoulder pain relief was significantly more in the intervention group than in the control group in the first 12 h of surgery.

Conclusion

Combined maneuvers could significantly reduce post-laparoscopic upper abdominal and shoulder pain.Clinical Trial CTRI Registration Number-CTRI/2017/07/0089, web address of CTRI-http://ctri.nic.in.

Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic for Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of intraperitoneal local anesthetic (IPLA) on pain after acute laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

IPLA reduces pain in adult elective surgery. It has not been well studied in acute peritoneal inflammatory conditions. We hypothesized that IPLA would improve recovery in pediatric acute laparoscopic appendectomy.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial in acute laparoscopic appendectomy recruited children aged 8 to 14 years to receive 20 mL 0.25% or 0.125% bupivacaine (according to weight) atomized onto the peritoneum of the right iliac fossa and pelvis, or 20 mL 0.9% NaCl control. Unrestricted computer-generated randomization was implemented by surgical nurses. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were blinded. The primary outcome was pain score. Analysis was by a linear mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Of 184 randomized participants (92 to each group), the final analysis included 88 IPLA and 87 control participants. There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain scores (effect estimate 0.004, standard error 0.028, 95% confidence interval -0.052, 0.061), and no difference in right iliac fossa or suprapubic site-specific pain scores, opioid use, recovery parameters, or complications. No child experienced a complication related to the intervention.

CONCLUSION

IPLA imparted no clinical benefit to children undergoing acute laparoscopic appendectomy and cannot be recommended in this setting.

Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Experience of a university group practice in a developing country

Aims: In developed countries, efforts to improve outcome and minimize costs prompted the performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an outpatient procedure. In the Philippines and in most developing countries, most laparoscopic cholecystectomies are still performed on admitted patients who are discharged one or more days after the surgery. No local experience has been published in the Philippines demonstrating the safety and feasibility of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective study investigating the outcome of outpatient performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the University of the Philippines, Philippine General Hospital Faculty Medical Arts Building (UP-PGH FMAB), an ambulatory surgical facility within UP-PGH. The patients were admitted to the ambulatory facility on the day of surgery, underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia and discharged on the same day. Results: From June 2012 to June 2016, 122 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the UP-PGH Faculty medical arts building. There were 80 women (85%) and 42 men (15%) with a mean age of 46 years. The mean operating time was 58 minutes. The unplanned admission rate was 2.4% (two patients), one for conversion to open and two for unrelieved postoperative nausea and vomiting. Conclusion: Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and technically feasible even in developing countries. It has potential for much economical and social benefit when employed judiciously. Prospective, randomized trials must be conducted in the local setting to refine technique, standardize patient selection and address system deficiencies to allow safe performance of outpatient laparoscopy in the Philippines.

Glisson's capsule cauterisation is associated with increased postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective case-control study

INTRODUCTION Postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy has three components: parietal, visceral and referred pain felt at the shoulder. Visceral peritoneal injury on the liver (Glisson's capsule) during cauterisation sometimes occurs as an unavoidable complication of the operation. Its effect on postoperative pain has not been quantified. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between Glisson's capsule injury and postoperative pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS The study was a prospective case-control of planned standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standardized anaesthesia protocol in patients with benign gallbladder disease. Visual analogue scale (VAS) abdominal pain scores were noted at 2 and 24 hours after the operation. One surgical team performed the operations. Operative videos were recorded and examined later by another team to detect presence of Glisson's capsule cauterisation. Eighty-one patients were enrolled into the study. After examination of the operative videos, 46 patients with visceral peritoneal injury were included in the study group, and the remaining 35 formed the control group. RESULTS VAS pain score at postoperative 2 and 24 hours was significantly higher in the study group than control (P = 0.027 and 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Glisson's capsule cauterisation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with increased postoperative pain. Additional efforts are recommended to prevent unintentional cauterisation.

Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improves Laparoscopic Surgical Conditions: A Randomized, Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Sustained deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) during laparoscopic surgery may facilitate optimal surgical conditions. This exploratory study assessed whether deep NMB improves surgical conditions and, in doing so, allows use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We further assessed whether use of low insufflation pressure improves patient pain scores after surgery.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled, blinded study (NCT01728584) compared use of deep (1-2 post-tetanic-counts) or moderate (train-of-four ratio 10%) NMB, and lower (8 mmHg) or higher (12 mmHg; 'standard') insufflation pressure in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary endpoint was surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions, rated at end of surgery using an 11-point numerical scale. Post-operative pain scores were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Of 127 randomized patients, 120 had evaluable data for the primary endpoint. Surgeon's score of overall satisfaction with surgical conditions was significantly higher with deep versus moderate NMB indicated by a least-square mean difference of 1.1 points (95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0; P = 0.026). Furthermore, strong evidence of an effect was observed for standard versus low pressure: least-square mean difference of 3.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.1-4.0; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in average pain scores within 24 h post-surgery for low versus standard pressure [0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.67 to +0.33); P = 0.494].

CONCLUSIONS

Although associated with significantly improved surgical conditions, deep NMB alone was insufficient to promote use of low insufflation pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Furthermore, low insufflation pressure did not result in reduced pain, compared with standard pressure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01728584.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Prospective survey to study factors which could influence same-day discharge after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a tertiary care hospital of a developing country

All laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) patients in our hospital setting are admitted overnight. This article assesses the contribution of factors like postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative pain and surgical complications to overnight stay after elective LC. This 1-year observational study included patients having normal liver functions undergoing elective LC before 1400 h. The collected data included patient demographics, co-morbidities, PONV, pain scores, complications, surgical time, anesthesia technique, use of prophylactic antiemetics, analgesics, patient satisfaction and desire to have this surgery as day case or in-patient procedure. From 930 LC done per annum, 45.2 % (430/950) patients were included in this study. Prophylactic antiemetic was given in 91.6 %, intraoperative narcotics in 94.2 % patients and multimodal analgesia in 85.3 %. The mean pain score in the recovery and ward was maintained to <4. In the ward, 99.1 % patients were able to start oral fluids after 6 h and were started on oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol, and none required parental opioid. The PONV score of more than 2 was observed in only 3.2 % of patients in the ward requiring parenteral antiemetic. Surgical complications in the form of bleeding, visceral injury and bile duct leak were observed in 2 % of patients, which was treated intra-operatively. Satisfaction was observed in 99.3 % and desire to stay overnight in 87.4 % of patients. Factors like postoperative pain, PONV and surgical complications were well managed and were not associated with significant morbidity to justify routine overnight admission. However, majority of the patients desired to stay overnight, which could be improved by counseling and education.

AMBULATORY LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY IS SAFE AND COST-EFFECTIVE: a Brazilian single center experience

ABSTRACT Background - Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the treatment of choice for gallstone disease, and has been perfomed as an outpatient surgery in many Institutions over the last few years. Objective - This is a retrospective study of a single center in Brazil, that aims to analyze the outcomes of 200 cases of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by the same Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary team, evaluating the safety and cost-effectiveness of the method. Methods - Two hundred consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were retrospectively analyzed; some of them underwent additional procedures, as liver biopsies and abdominal hernias repair. Results - From a total of 200 cases, the outpatient surgery protocol could not be carried out in 22 (11%). Twenty one (95.5%) patients remained hospitalized for 1 day and 1 (4.5%) patient remained hospitalized for 2 days. From the 178 patients who underwent ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 3 (1.7 %) patients returned to the emergency room before the review appointment. Hospital cost was on average 35% lower for the ambulatory group. Conclusion - With appropriate selection criteria, ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible, safe and effective; readmission rate is low, as well as complications related to the method. Cost savings and patient satisfaction support its adoption. Other studies are necessary to recommend this procedure as standard practice in Brazil.

Effects of Intra-abdominally Instilled Isotonic Saline on Pain, Recovery, and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Prospective Double-Blind Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

The postoperative installation of isotonic saline in the abdomen has been suggested as a method to reduce the effect of local toxins, thereby reducing postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this randomized prospective double-blind trial was to assess whether installation of isotonic saline can reduce postoperative pain and nausea following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Altogether 71 LC patients were randomized to either intra-abdominal instillation of isotonic saline group (S) (n = 36) or no saline (NS) group (n = 35) at the end of surgery. Data were collected by means of questionnaires. The postoperative recovery profile questionnaire was answered prior to surgery and 1 week postoperatively, SF-36 prior to surgery and at 1 month postoperatively, and a pain diary recording a Visual Analogue Scale score each day during the first week.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 94%. No significant differences were seen between the groups regarding abdominal and shoulder pain. However, the NS group reported more pain (NS = 53 %, S = 29 %) and fatigue (NS = 50%, S = 35%) than the S group postoperative day 7. Moreover, the most frequently reported problem in both groups 7 days after surgery was getting back to normal life (60%). Females reported a slower recovery profile than males and also more postoperative symptoms day 7. HRQoL results were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Instillation of isotonic saline does not improve recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Postoperative pain was more often reported in the NS group than in the S group, though the difference was not significant.

Effect of bupivacaine soaked gauze in postoperative pain relief in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational controlled trial in 120 patients

Background

Symptomatic gallstone disease is one of the most common problem attended by a general surgeon. The application of minimally invasive surgical techniques for the removal of gallbladder is now an accepted and preferred method for treating this condition. The avoidance of a subcostal incision and minimal bowel handling leads to decreased postoperative pain, early returning to function and overall shorter duration of hospital stay. Nevertheless, patients do have significant postoperative pain, and newer techniques to further reduce this pain are the subject of many ongoing studies. Many intraoperative techniques for reducing postoperative pain have been described. The current practice at many institutions, including ours, is to discharge the patient on the first postoperative day on oral analgesics. Better control of postoperative pain may help establishing laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a day care procedure in selected patients. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of 0.5 % bupivacaine soaked oxidized regenerated cellulose surgical versus normal saline soaked surgical applied at the gallbladder bed on postoperative mean pain score after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones.

Patients and methods

Patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were enrolled in the study after meeting the inclusion criteria. Relevant history was taken and clinical examination was done. Necessary investigations were carried out. All patients were divided to receive either 0.5 % bupivacaine soaked surgicel or normal saline soaked surgicel after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with each group having equal number of patients. The pain score was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 4, 12 and 24 h after the procedure in both groups. All data was recorded on performa and SPSS-19 was used for analysis.

Results

The demographic characteristic of the two groups has shown that studied patients were matched as regarding gender, age, weight, ASA status and duration of surgery. Post-operative abdominal pain was significantly lower in bupivacaine Group than Saline group. This difference was reported from 4 h till 12 h post-operatively. Bradycardia, Hypotension and Urinary retention were the most common perioperative symptoms reported, with an incidence of 28.3 % in the saline Group and 15 % in the bupivacaine group with no significant differences. Evaluation of postoperative details such as oral intake, time to walk and length of hospital stay revealed that bupivacaine group reported better outcomes as compared to saline group.

Conclusion

Placing bupivacaine soaked surgicel has been shown to decrease the mean postoperative pain score in patients. No significant complication was noticed with the use of surgicel. Because adequate pain control requires intravenous medications, additional methods for pain control need to be studied before laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be routinely performed as a day care case.

Comparison of a standard CO₂ pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

AirSeal™ is a novel class of valve-free insufflation system that enables a stable pneumoperitoneum with continuous smoke evacuation and carbon dioxide (CO₂) recirculation during laparoscopic surgery. Comparison data to standard CO₂ pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflators is scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential advantages of AirSeal™ compared to a standard CO₂ insufflator.

Methods/Design

This is a single center randomized controlled trial comparing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, colorectal surgery and hernia repair with AirSeal™ (group A) versus a standard CO₂ pressure insufflator (group S). Patients are randomized using a web-based central randomization and registration system. Primary outcome measures will be operative time and level of postoperative shoulder pain by using the visual analog score (VAS). Secondary outcomes include the evaluation of immunological values through blood tests, anesthesiological parameters, surgical side effects and length of hospital stay. Taking into account an expected dropout rate of 5%, the total number of patients is 182 (n = 91 per group). All tests will be two-sided with a confidence level of 95% (P <0.05).

Discussion

The duration of an operation is an important factor in reducing the patient’s exposure to CO₂ pneumoperitoneum and its adverse consequences. This trial will help to evaluate if the announced advantages of AirSeal™, such as clear sight of the operative site and an exceptionally stable working environment, will facilitate the course of selected procedures and influence operation time and patients clinical outcome.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01740011, registered 23 November 2012.

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.

Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1831 participants were randomised to drain (915 participants) versus 'no drain' (916 participants) in 12 trials included in this review. Only two trials including 199 participants were of low risk of bias. Nine trials included patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and one trial did not provide this information. The average age of participants in the trials ranged between 48 years and 63 years in the 10 trials that provided this information. The proportion of females ranged between 55.0% and 79.0% in the 11 trials that provided this information. There was no significant difference between the drain group (1/840) (adjusted proportion: 0.1%) and the 'no drain' group (2/841) (0.2%) (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.37) in short-term mortality in the ten trials with 1681 participants reporting on this outcome. There was no significant difference between the drain group (7/567) (adjusted proportion: 1.1%) and the 'no drain' group (3/576) (0.5%) in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events in the seven trials with 1143 participants reporting on this outcome (RR 2.12; 95% CI 0.67 to 7.40) or in the number of serious adverse events in each group reported by eight trials with 1286 participants; drain group (12/646) (adjusted rate: 1.5 events per 100 participants) versus 'no drain' group (6/640) (0.9 events per 100 participants); rate ratio 1.60; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87). There was no significant difference in the quality of life between the two groups (one trial; 93 participants; SMD 0.22; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.63). The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy seemed significantly lower in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (one trial; 68 participants; drain group (0/33) (adjusted proportion: 0.2%) versus 'no drain' group (11/35) (31.4%); RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.75). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (five trials; 449 participants; MD 0.22 days; 95% CI -0.06 days to 0.51 days). The operating time was significantly longer in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (seven trials; 775 participants; MD 5.00 minutes; 95% CI 2.69 minutes to 7.30 minutes). There was no significant difference in the return to normal activity and return to work between the groups in one trial involving 100 participants. This trial did not provide any information from which the standard deviation could be imputed and so the confidence intervals could not be calculated for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomised clinical trials are necessary.

Double-blind randomized sham controlled trial of intraperitoneal bupivacaine during emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Intraperitoneal local anesthesia (IPLA) during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (el-LC) decreases post-operative pain. None of the studies have explored the efficacy of IPLA at emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy (em-LC). A longer operative duration, the greater frequency of washing, and the inflammation associated with cholecystitis or pancreatitis are a few reasons why it cannot be assumed that a benefit in pain scores will be seen in em-LC with IPLA. This study was undertaken to assess the efficacy of IPLA in patients undergoing em-LC.

METHODS

Double-blind randomized sham controlled trial was conducted of 41 consecutive subjects undergoing em-LC. IPLA was delivered by a combination of injection to the diaphragmatic and topical wash over the liver and gallbladder with bupivacaine or saline. The primary outcome was visual analogue scale pain scores until discharge. Secondary outcomes included pain scores in theatre recovery and analgesic consumption.

RESULTS

One patient had a procedure converted to open and was excluded. There was no significant difference in pain scores in the ward or theatre recovery. Analgesic use, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, duration to ambulation, eating, satisfaction scores, and time to discharge were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IPLA during em-LC does not influence postoperative pain. Other modalities of analgesia should be explored for decreasing the interval between diagnosis of acute admission and em-LC.

Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An audit of day case vs overnight surgery at a community hospital in Japan

AIM: To evaluate the applicability and safety of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and to compare day case and overnight stay LC.

METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively and consecutively for day case and overnight stay LC patients from July 1, 2009 to April 30, 2011. Outcomes were analyzed for patient demographics, operation time, blood loss during operation and frequency and reasons for unexpected or prolonged hospitalization in each group.

RESULTS: There was no hospital mortality and no patient was readmitted with serious morbidity after discharge. 50 patients received a day case LC and 19 had an overnight stay LC. There was a significant difference in age between both groups (P < 0.02). There were no significant differences between the day case LC performed (n = 41) and failed (n = 9) groups and between the day case LC performed and the one night stay LC (n = 12) groups. There was a significant difference in age between the one night stay and more nights stay LC groups (P < 0.05). Thus, elderly patients showed a tendency to like to stay in hospital rather than being a day case. The proportion of unexpected or prolonged hospitalization was not significantly different between the day case and overnight stay LC groups, when the patient’s request was excluded.

CONCLUSION: Day case LC can be performed with a low rate of complications. In overnight stay patients, there are many who could be performed safely as a day case. Moreover, we need to take special care to treat elderly patients.

Spinal versus general anesthesia for day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DCLC) performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia with that performed with the patients under general anesthesia in the management of symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred eighty patients were prospectively randomized to either the spinal anesthesia DCLC group (SA-DCLC group) or the general anesthesia DCLC group (GA-DCLC group). Intraoperative events related to spinal anesthesia, postoperative complications, and pain scores were recorded. The incidences of both overnight stay and readmissions were also recorded. Patient satisfaction values as to the anesthetic technique and same-day discharge were assessed by direct questionnaire at the end of the first postoperative week.

RESULTS

In both groups, all procedures were completed laparoscopically. In the SA-DCLC group, there were 4 (4.4%) anesthetic conversions due to intolerable right shoulder pain, and those 4 patients were excluded from further analysis. In the SA-DCLC group, all patients were discharged on the same day. Overnight stay was required in 8 patients (8.9%) in the GA-DCLC group (P<.001). The cause of overnight stay was nausea and vomiting in 4 patients (4.4%), inadequate pain control in 3 patients (3.3%), and unexplained hypotension in 1 patient (1.1%). Readmission was required in 1 patient (1.1%) in the GA-DCLC group. The difference in patient satisfaction scores with regard to both anesthetic technique and same-day discharge was not statistically significant between the two groups studied.

CONCLUSIONS

DCLC performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia is feasible and safe and is associated with less postoperative pain and lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and therefore a lower incidence of overnight stay compared with that performed with the patient under general anesthesia.

Efficacy of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic techniques during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a barrier to early discharge. Some studies have demonstrated that local anaesthetic (LA) washed over the liver and gallbladder decreases postoperative pain. In many patients pain is partially of diaphragmatic origin which may not be treated effectively by topical wash. This study assesses the efficacy of LA injected to the peritoneum of the right hemidiaphragm or topical wash with a control group.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind randomized sham controlled trial of 128 consecutive subjects who underwent elective LC. Patients received subcutaneous bupivacaine, a diaphragmatic injection of bupivacaine or sham, and topical wash over the liver/gallbladder with bupivacaine or sham depending upon allocation. The primary outcome was VAS pain scores on the ward. Secondary outcomes included VRS pain scores in theatre recovery, analgesic use, physiological observations, time to eating and ambulation, and successful day-case surgery.

RESULTS

Pain scores were significantly lower in both LA groups versus control in theatre recovery but only in the subperitoneal diaphragm injection group when the patients returned to the ward. Subperitoneal diaphragm injection was associated with a reduced time in theatre recovery (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraperitoneal techniques of LA during LC decrease postoperative pain and shorten time in theatre recovery. Injection of LA to the right hemidiaphragm is associated with lower pain scores for a longer period following LC than a previously validated wash technique.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a teaching hospital: a prospective study of 110 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OLC) in a day surgery unit in a teaching hospital. OLC was offered to patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis who met the following established inclusion criteria: ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) physical status classification class I and II; age: 18 - 70 years; body mass index (BMI) < 30 kg/m2; patient acceptance and cooperation (informed consent); presence of a responsible adult to accompany the patient to his residency; patient residency in Athens. The primary study end-point was to evaluate success rates (patient discharge on the day of surgery), postoperative outcome (complications, re-admissions, morbidity and mortality) and patient satisfaction. A secondary endpoint was to evaluate its safe performance under appropriate supervision by higher surgical trainees (HSTs).

FINDINGS

110 consecutive patients, predominantly female (71%) and ASA I (89%) with a mean age 40.6 +/- 8.1 years underwent an OLC. Surgery was performed by a HST in 90 patients (81.8%). A mean postoperative pain score 3.3 (range 0-6) occurred in the majority of patients and no patient presented postoperative nausea or vomiting. Discharge on the day of surgery occurred in 95 cases (86%), while an overnight admission was required for 15 patients (14%). Re-admission following hospital discharge was necessary for 2 patients (1.8%) on day 2, due to persistent pain in the umbilical trocar site. The overall rate of major (trocar site bleeding) and minor morbidity was 15.5% (17 patients). At 1 week follow-up, 94 patients (85%) were satisfied with their experience undergoing OLC, with no difference between grades of operating surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed that OLC is clinical effective and can be performed safely in a teaching hospital by supervised HSTs.

Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine for Effective Pain Relief after Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the effectiveness of intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine in the relief of pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Patients in group C (placebo control group; n = 33) received normal saline and those in group I (instillation group; n = 30) received an instillation of 2 mg/kg ropivacaine at the initiation of the pneumoperitoneum. Visual analogue scale pain scores, fentanyl consumption and the frequency at which patients pushed the button (FPB) of a patient-controlled analgesia system during the post-operative period were significantly lower in group I compared with group C, and decreased gradually with time in both groups. The total amount of fentanyl consumed and the total FPB were significantly lower in group I compared with group C. Thus, intraperitoneal ropivacaine instillation reduced pain during the post-operative period after laparoscopic appendectomy. In addition, this drug was easy to administer and had no adverse effects at the dose used.

Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The attempt to further reduce operative trauma in laparoscopic cholecystectomy has led to new techniques such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS). These new techniques are considered to be painless procedures, but no published studies investigate the possibility of different pain scores in these new techniques versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In this randomized control study, we investigated pain scores in SILS cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty patients (34 women and 6 men) were randomly assigned to two groups. In group A (n = 20) four-port classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed. Patients in group B (n = 20) underwent SILS cholecystectomy. In all patients, preincisional local infiltration of ropivacaine around the trocar wounds was performed. Infusion of ropivacaine solution in the right subdiaphragmatic area at the beginning of the procedure plus normal saline infusion in the same area at the end of the procedure was performed in all patients as well. Shoulder tip and abdominal pain were registered at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively using visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Significantly lower pain scores were observed in the SILS group versus the classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy group after the first 12 h for abdominal pain, and after the first 6 h for shoulder pain. Total pain after the first 24 h was nonexistent in the SILS group. Also, requests for analgesics were significantly less in the SILS group, while no difference was observed in incidence of nausea and vomiting between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SILS cholecystectomy, as well as the invisible scar, has significantly lower abdominal and shoulder pain scores, especially after the first 24 h postoperatively, when this pain is nonexistent. (Registration Clinical Trial number: NTC00872287, www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

A prospective randomized, controlled study comparing low pressure versus high pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The increase in intra-abdominal pressure by insufflation of carbon dioxide during laparoscopy brings certain changes in function of organ systems and also leads to postoperative pain. Degree of intra-abdominal pressure is directly related with such change. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed at low pressure pneumoperitoneum. However, available space for dissection is less than the high pressure pneumoperitoneum.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were studied in a prospective, randomized, patient, and surgeon blinded manner. The intra-abdominal pressure was kept either in low pressure (8 mm Hg) or in high pressure (12 mm Hg). All patients underwent two dimensional echocardiography, pulmonary function test and color Doppler examination of lower limb vessels preoperatively and postoperatively. Arterial blood gas analysis and End Tidal CO2 monitored before insufflation, during surgery and after deflation. Pain score was measured by visual analog scale and surgeon's comfort level was recorded. Postoperative analgesia requirement, complications, and hospital stay were recorded. Student t test used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Both groups match for the demographic parameters. Four patients required conversion to high pressure. Intraoperative pO2 level, postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, pulmonary function, and hospital stay were favoring low pressure pneumoperitoneum in a statistically significant manner. There was no difference between 2 groups for duration of surgery, intraoperative, and postoperative complications. However, the technical difficulties were graded more (statistically nonsignificant) with low pressure pneumoperitoneum.

CONCLUSIONS

An uncomplicated gall stone disease can be treated by low pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy with reasonable safety by an experienced surgeon. Though surgeons experience more difficulty in dissection during low pressure pneumoperitoneum, it is significantly advantageous in terms of postoperative pain, use of analgesics, preservation of pulmonary function, and hospital stay.

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum versus standard pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Post-laparoscopic pain syndrome is well recognized and characterized by abdominal and particularly shoulder tip pain; it occurs frequently following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The etiology of post-laparoscopic pain can be classified into three aspects: visceral, incision, and shoulder. The origin of shoulder pain is only partly understood, but it is commonly assumed that the cause is overstretching of the diaphragmatic muscle fibers owing to a high rate of insufflations. This study aimed to compare the frequency and intensity of shoulder tip pain between low-pressure (7 mmHg) and standard-pressure (14 mmHg) in a prospective randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

One hundred and forty consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized prospectively to either high- or low-pressure pneumoperitoneum and blinded by research nurses who assessed the patients during the postoperative period. The statistical analysis included sex, mean age, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, operative time, complication rate, duration of surgery, conversion rate, postoperative pain by using visual analogue scale, number of analgesic injections, incidence and severity of shoulder tip pain, and postoperative hospital stay. p < 0.05 was considered indicative of significance.

RESULTS

The characteristics of the patients were similar in the two groups except for the predominance of males in the standard-pressure group (controls). The procedure was successful in 68 of 70 patients in the low-pressure group compared with in 70 patients in the standard group. Operative time, number of analgesic injections, visual analogue score, and length of postoperative days were similar in both groups. Incidence of shoulder tip pain was higher in the standard-pressure group, but not statistically significantly so (27.9% versus 44.3%) (p = 0.100).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum tended to be better than standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in terms of lower incidence of shoulder tip pain, but this difference did not reach statistical significance following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Day-case versus overnight stay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Although day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy can save bed costs, its safety remains to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and benefits of day-case surgery compared to overnight stay in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2008 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, comparing day-case and overnight stay in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, morbidity, prolonged hospitalisation, re-admissions, pain and quality of life from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio, weighted mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials with 429 patients randomised to the day-case group (215) and overnight stay group (214) were included in the review. All the trials were of high risk of bias. The trials recruited 49% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. The selection criteria varied, but most included only patients without other diseases. The patients were living in easy reach of the hospital and with a responsible adult to take care of them. On the day of surgery, 81% of day-case patients were discharged. The drop-out rate after randomisation varied from 6.5% to 12.7%. There was no significant difference between day-case and overnight stay group as regards to morbidity, prolongation of hospital stay, re-admission rates, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction and return to normal activity and work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to be a safe and effective intervention in selected patients (with no or minimal systemic disease and within easy reach of the hospital) with symptomatic gallstones. Because of the decreased hospital stay, it is likely to save costs.

A simple clinical maneuver to reduce laparoscopy-induced shoulder pain: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the efficacy of a simple clinical maneuver that facilitates removal of residual abdominal carbon dioxide (CO2) after laparoscopic surgery to reduce shoulder pain.

METHODS

A total of 116 female outpatients who were scheduled for elective gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were randomly allocated to either the current standard (control group) or to additional efforts to remove residual CO2 at the end of surgery. In the control group, CO2 was removed by passive deflation of the abdominal cavity through the cannula. In the intervention group, CO2 was removed by means of Trendelenburg position (30 degrees) and a pulmonary recruitment maneuver consisting of five manual inflations of the lung. Postoperative shoulder pain was assessed before discharge and 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours later using a visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100). In addition, positional characteristics of the shoulder pain and incidence of postdischarge nausea and vomiting were recorded until 48 hours after discharge.

RESULTS

Pain scores in the control and intervention groups were 30.3+/-4.5 compared with 15.6+/-3.0, 25.7+/-4.7 compared with 10.8+/-2.4, and 21.7+/-4.3 compared with 9.1+/-2.5 at 12, 24 and 36 hours after discharge, respectively (all P<.05). The intervention reduced positional pain from 63% to 31% (P<.05) and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting from 56.5% to 20.4% (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

This simple clinical maneuver at the end of surgery reduced shoulder pain as well as postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery by more than half.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00575237

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Post-Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Pain: Effects of Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetics on Pain Control–A Randomized Prospective Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Trial

Postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is generally less than open cholecystectomy; however, the postoperative shoulder and abdominal pain experienced by patients still causes preventable distress. Intraperitoneal irrigation of the diaphragmatic surface and gallbladder fossa using normal saline, bupivacaine, or lignocaine may effectively control visceral abdominal pain after an LC. Two hundred patients with similar demographics undergoing elective LC were randomized to one of four groups of 50 patients each, including Group A placebo control, Group B with isotonic saline irrigation, Group C with bupivacaine irrigation, and Group D with lignocaine irrigation. All patients received preperitoneal abdominal wall infiltration with 0.25 per cent bupivacaine to control parietal (somatic) abdominal pain. The visual analogue and verbal rating pain scores at 0, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours for both shoulder and abdominal pain were recorded in a prospective double-blind fashion at four points during the first 24 postoperative hours. Analgesia requirements, vital signs, blood glucose, and incidence of nausea and vomiting were also recorded. Patients in each group demonstrated a significant difference in visual analogue and verbal rating pain scores and analgesic consumption when compared with controls. Lignocaine controlled pain significantly better than saline or bupivacaine. Bowel function recovery was similar in all patients, and there were no significant complications. We conclude that intraperitoneal irrigation with either saline, bupivacaine, or lignocaine can significantly reduce visceral abdominal pain after LC. Lignocaine was the most efficacious local anesthetic in this trial and has a high safety profile when used at recommended doses.

Preincisional and intraperitoneal ropivacaine plus normal saline infusion for postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A clinical trial was designed to assess the use of preincisional and intraperitoneal ropivacaine, combined or not with normal saline, to reduce pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

For this trial, 120 patients were randomly assigned to six groups. For all the patients, preincisional local infiltration of ropivacaine around the trocar wounds was performed. Group A had infusion of ropivacaine at the beginning of the LC. Group B had infusion of ropivacaine at the beginning of the LC plus normal saline infusion at the end. Group C had normal saline infusion and ropivacaine at the end of the LC. Group D had infusion of ropivacaine at the beginning of the LC plus normal saline infusion at the end and a subhepatic closed drain. Group E had ropivacaine at the end of the LC. Group F (control group) had neither ropivacaine nor normal saline infusion. Shoulder tip and abdominal pain were registered at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively using a visual analog score (VAS).

RESULTS

Significantly lower pain scores were observed in group B than in group A at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h or in groups C, D, E, and F at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. Group A also had significantly lower pain scores than groups C, D, E, and F at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. Requests for analgesics also were significantly less in group B than in group A at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h or in groups C, D, and E at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. Demand for additional analgesia was less in group B than in groups A, C, D, E, and F at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h and in group A than in groups C, D, E, and F at 2, 4, 6, and 12 h.

CONCLUSION

Preincisional local infiltration plus intraperitoneal infusion of ropivacaine at the beginning of LC combined with normal saline infusion at the end of the procedure is a safe and valid method for reducing pain after LC.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Although day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy can save bed costs, its safety has to be established. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of day-case surgery compared with overnight stay in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials addressing the above issue were identified from The Cochrane Library trials register, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and reference lists. Data were extracted from these trials by two independent reviewers. For each outcome the relative risk, weighted mean difference or standardized mean difference was calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals based on available case analysis.

RESULTS

Five trials with 215 patients randomized to the day-case group and 214 to the overnight-stay group were included in the review. Four of the five trials were of low risk of bias. The trials recruited 49.1 per cent of patients presenting for cholecystectomy. There was no significant difference between day case and overnight stay with respect to morbidity, prolongation of hospital stay, readmission rates, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and return to normal activity and work. In the day-case group 80.5 per cent of patients were discharged on the day of surgery.

CONCLUSION

Day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic gallstones.

Day-case versus overnight stay in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Although day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy can save bed costs, its safety remains to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and benefits of day-case surgery compared to overnight stay in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2007 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, comparing day-case and overnight stay in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, morbidity, prolonged hospitalisation, re-admissions, pain and quality of life from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the relative risk, weighted mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials with 429 patients randomised to the day-case group (215) and overnight stay group (214) were included in the review. Four of the five trials were of low risk of bias regarding randomisation and follow up, but all lacked blinding. The trials recruited 49% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. The selection criteria varied, but most included only patients without other diseases. The patients were living in easy reach of the hospital and with a responsible adult to take care of them. On the day of surgery, 81% of day-case patients were discharged. The drop-out rate after randomisation varied from 6.5% to 12.7%. There was no significant difference between day-case and overnight stay group as regards to morbidity, prolongation of hospital stay, re-admission rates, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction and return to normal activity and work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to be a safe and effective intervention in selected patients (with no or minimal systemic disease and within easy reach of the hospital) with symptomatic gallstones. Because of the decreased hospital stay, it is likely to save costs.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage with no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Randomised clinical trials comparing one type of drain with another were also reviewed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, abdominal collections, pain, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We analysed six trials involving 741 patients randomised to drain (361) versus no drain (380). The only patient with abdominal collections requiring intervention belonged to the drain group. Wound infection was significantly higher in those with a drain (OR 5.86, 95% CI 1.05 to 32.70). Drainage was associated with nausea, but this was not statistically significant. Hospital stay was longer in the drain group and the number of patients discharged at the day of operation was significantly reduced in the no drain group (OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.57, 1 trial). We also reviewed one trial with 41 patients randomised to suction drain (22) versus closed passive drain (19). This trial suggests that suction drains carried less pain than passive drains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Drain use after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases wound infection rates and delays hospital discharge. We could not find evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The effects of preoperative rofecoxib, metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and ondansetron on postoperative pain and nausea in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

No trial to date has evaluated the combined effect of preoperative Rofecoxib, Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, and Ondansetron on postoperative pain and nausea in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A prospective randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial was conducted on patients undergoing elective LC. The patients in the intervention group received Rofecoxib 25 mg PO. Additionally the study group received Metoclopramide 10 mg and Dexamethasone 4 mg; and Ondansetron 4 mg intravenously. Pain and nausea were rated preoperatively, on arrival at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), at points until discharge, and at 24 hours.

RESULTS

97 patients were in the control group, and 108 received intervention. The intervention group had a smaller proportion of men (10% vs. 23%; p < 0.015). There were differences in: length of stay (LOS) until discharge criteria met (12.88 vs. 9.85 hours, p = 0.0006), pain rating on arrival to floor (3.55 vs. 2.48, p = 0.003); highest pain rating (4.38 vs. 3.56, p = 0.032), highest nausea rating (2.99 vs. 1.47, p = 0.001), worst nausea since discharge (2.58 vs. 1.26, p = 0.005), and the use of postoperative anti-emetics in women (64% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of this preoperative regimen resulted in decreased LOS, maximum pain, and nausea ratings. Patients in the intervention group required less postoperative anti-emetics.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage with no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Randomised clinical trials comparing one type of drain with another were also reviewed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, abdominal collections, pain, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We analysed five trials involving 591 patients randomised to drain (281) versus no drain (310). We also reviewed one trial with 41 patients randomised to suction drain (22) versus closed passive drain (19). The only trial that reported on abdominal collections requiring intervention reported no abdominal collections requiring intervention in either group. Wound infection tended to be higher in those with a drain (OR 15.38, 95% CI 0.86 to 275.74). Drainage was associated with lower shoulder, abdominal pain, and nausea, but this was not statistically significant. Hospital stay was longer in the drain group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Drain use after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduces early post-operative pain, but increases wound infection rates and delays hospital discharge. We could not find evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Randomized clinical trial of the influence of intraperitoneal local anaesthesia on pain after laparoscopic surgery

Background

There is controversy about the effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthesia (LA) in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the present randomized clinical trial was to compare the analgesic effect of pre-emptive (preoperative) versus postoperative intraperitoneal LA in two different types of laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Between July 2004 and January 2005, 133 consecutive patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic fundoplication or hernia repair were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: placebo solution (50 ml 0·9 per cent saline) or LA (50 ml 0·5 per cent lidocaine) administered immediately after creation of the pneumoperitoneum, or LA (50 ml 0·5 per cent lidocaine) at the end of the operation. Analgesic requirements were analysed, and pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery.

Results

The duration of pneumoperitoneum (median 66 versus 46 min respectively; P &lt; 0·001) and overall pain intensity (median VAS score 46·7 versus 6·5; P &lt; 0·001) were higher for laparoscopic fundoplication than for hernia repair. Preoperative application of LA reduced abdominal pain (median 28·6 versus 74·9; P &lt; 0·005), shoulder pain (median 24·3 versus 43·8; P = 0·004) and analgesic consumption (mean(s.d.) 11·1(5·0) versus 18·5(5·4) mg piritramide per 48 h; P = 0·002) after fundoplication, but had no analgesic effects after hernia repair.

Conclusion

Pre-emptive application of LA reduced postoperative pain and analgesic requirements after laparoscopic fundoplication.