Does Peritoneal Suction Drainage Reduce Pain After Gynecologic Laparoscopy?

The effect of abdominal drainage on post-operative morbidity; a prospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of drains used in current clinical practice on operation parameters and post-operative morbidity. The comprehensive data obtained through the prospective design were analysed in detail according to whether abdominal drainage was applied. Abdominal drainage was present in 44.1% of patients who met the inclusion criteria. Drains were placed significantly more frequently during oncologic surgery (p = .007). The mean mobilisation (p = .001), first flatus (p = .001), and first oral intake (p = .029) times were longer in the drain group than those in the non-drain group. In patients who underwent oncological surgeries, no significant differences were observed except for the pre-operative duration of bowel preparation (p = .006) and first flatus time (p = .003). Our results suggest that drain placement in gynecological procedures does not provide an additional advantage.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Post-operative drainage of the abdominal cavity has been controversial for many years. However, whether abdominal drainage provides an additional benefit in lower and upper abdominal surgical procedures remains unclear.What do the results of this study add? Most studies have examined post-operative pain and surgical site infections. We examined the relationship between abdominal drainage and demographic and pre-/post-operative clinical features in detail. We demonstrated that abdominal drainage in gynecological procedures may not provide an additional advantage.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The present study provides valuable information that can guide physicians in deciding whether to use post-operative abdominal drainage. This topic warrants investigation with randomised data in the future.

Investigating the effects of drainage by hemovac drain on shoulder pain after female laparoscopic surgery and comparison with deep breathing technique: a randomized clinical trial study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of shoulder pain following laparoscopic surgery has been reported to be high. This study was designed to investigate the effect of Hemovac drain on postoperative pain of women after laparoscopic surgery, dose of postoperative drug, duration of hospitalization as well as comparison with deep breathing technique.

METHODS

In this clinical trial, one hundred and fourteen female patients treated by laparoscopy were randomly assigned to three groups of 38 patients. In our study group, the Hemovac drain was implemented from the secondary trocar site with a closed system. In the deep breathing group, the patient was asked to breathe slowly and deeply three time per hour at full vigilance after surgery. In the non-drain group, laparoscopic surgery was done routinely. The severity of abdominal and shoulder pain was measured with a visual scale of pain at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, type of surgery, duration of hospitalization, postoperative nausea and vomiting between the groups after surgery. The severity of shoulder pain was significant between groups 3, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery (p < 0.001). Consumption of diclofenac after operation was higher in the control group (p < 0.001). The pain level of laparoscopic surgery was not different between the three groups within the first 24 h after surgery (p = 0.841).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Hemovac drain in female laparoscopic surgery is beneficial for reducing the subsequent shoulder pain. Further studies are recommended to investigate the effects of deep breathing as a non-pharmacological and safe method in other laparoscopic areas.

Pain after laparoscopic surgery: Focus on shoulder-tip pain after gynecological laparoscopic surgery

Laparoscopy, one of minimally invasive procedures, is a commonly used procedure in diagnosis and management of various kinds of clinical problems, including gynecologic organ-related diseases. Compared with conventional exploratory laparotomy, the benefits of laparoscopic surgery include reduction of surgical wound, decreasing in postoperative pain, shortening hospital stay, rapid recovery, and a better cosmetic result. However, there are still up to 80% of patients after laparoscopic surgery complaining of high levels of pain and needing pain relief. Postlaparoscopic pain can be separated into distinct causes, such as surgical trauma- or incision wound-associated inflammatory change, and pneumoperitoneum (carbon dioxide [CO2])-related morphological and biochemical changes of peritoneum and diaphragm. The latter is secondary to irritation, stretching, and foreign body stimulation, leading to phrenic neuropraxia and subsequent shoulder-tip pain (STP). STP is the most typical unpleasant experience of patients after laparoscopic surgery. There are at least 11 strategies available to attempt to decrease postlaparoscopic STP, including (1) the use of an alternative insufflating gas in place of CO2, (2) the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in place of standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, (3) the use of warmed or warmed and humidified CO2, (4) gasless laparoscopy, (5) subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal anesthesia, (6) local intraperitoneal anesthesia, (7) actively expelling out of gas, (8) intraperitoneal drainage, (9) fluid instillation, (10) pulmonary recruitment maneuvers, and (11) others and combination. The present article is limited in discussing postlaparoscopic STP. We extensively review published articles to provide a better strategy to reduce postlaparoscopic STP.

Interventions to reduce shoulder pain following gynaecological laparoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure used to diagnose and treat various gynaecological conditions. Shoulder-tip pain (STP) as a result of the laparoscopy occurs in up to 80% of women, with potential for significant morbidity, delayed discharge and readmission. Interventions at the time of gynaecological laparoscopy have been developed in an attempt to reduce the incidence and severity of STP.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of methods for reducing the incidence and severity of shoulder-tip pain (STP) following gynaecological laparoscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 8 August 2018. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions used during or immediately after gynaecological laparoscopy to reduce the incidence or severity of STP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes: incidence or severity of STP and adverse events of the interventions; secondary outcomes: analgesia usage, delay in discharge, readmission rates, quality-of-life scores and healthcare costs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (3284 women). Laparoscopic procedures in these studies varied from diagnostic procedures to complex operations. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.Specific technique versus "standard" technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneumUse of a specific technique of releasing the pneumoperitoneum (pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre, extended assisted ventilation or actively aspirating intra-abdominal gas) reduced the severity of STP at 24 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.50; 5 RCTs; 670 participants; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) and reduced analgesia usage (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.35; 4 RCTs; 570 participants; I² = 91%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in the incidence of STP at 24 hours (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.82; 1 RCT; 118 participants; low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in the only study assessing this outcome.Fluid instillation versus no fluid instillationFluid instillation is probably associated with a reduction in STP incidence (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.66; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) and severity (mean difference (MD) (0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) scale) -2.27, 95% CI -3.06 to -1.48; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I² = 29%, moderate-quality evidence) at 24 hours, and may reduce analgesia usage (MD -12.02, 95% CI -23.97 to -0.06; 2 RCTs; 205 participants, low-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Intraperitoneal drain versus no intraperitoneal drainUsing an intraperitoneal drain may reduce the incidence of STP at 24 hours (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; 3 RCTs; 417 participants; I² = 90%, low-quality evidence) and may reduce analgesia use within 48 hours post-operatively (SMD -1.84, 95% CI -2.14 to -1.54; 2 RCTs; 253 participants; I² = 90%). We are uncertain whether it reduces the severity of STP at 24 hours, as the evidence was very low quality (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) -1.85, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.55; 3 RCTs; 320 participants; I² = 70%).No study measured adverse events.Subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control (no fluid instillation, normal saline or Ringer's lactate)There is probably little or no difference between the groups in incidence of STP (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.23; 4 RCTs; 336 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in STP severity (MD -1.13, 95% CI -2.52 to 0.26; 1 RCT; 50 participants; low-quality evidence), both measured at 24 hours. However, the intervention may reduce post-operative analgesia use (SMD-0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.21; 2 RCTs; 129 participants; I² = 51%, low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in any study.Local anaesthetic into peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic) versus normal salineLocal anaesthetic into the peritoneal cavity may reduce the incidence of STP at 4 to 8 hours post-operatively (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I² = 56%; low-quality evidence). Our other outcomes of interest were not assessed.Warmed, or warmed and humidified CO₂ versus unwarmed and unhumidified CO₂There may be no difference between these interventions in incidence of STP at 24 to 48 hours (OR 0.81 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 2 RCTs; 194 participants; I² = 12%; low-quality evidence) or in analgesia usage within 48 hours (MD -4.97 mg morphine, 95% CI -11.25 to 1.31; 1 RCT; 95 participants; low-quality evidence); there is probably little or no difference in STP severity at 24 hours (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) 0.11, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.97; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I² = 50%; moderate-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Gasless laparoscopy versus CO₂ insufflationGasless laparoscopy may be associated with increased severity of STP within 72 hours post-operatively when compared with standard treatment (MD 3.8 (0 to 30 VAS scale), 95% CI 0.76 to 6.84; 1 RCT; 54 participants, low-quality evidence), and there may be no difference in the risk of adverse events (OR 2.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 26.28; 1 RCT; 54 participants; low-quality evidence).No study measured the incidence of STP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate-quality evidence that the following interventions are associated with a reduction in the incidence or severity, or both, of STP, or a reduction in analgesia requirements for women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy: a specific technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneum; intraperitoneal fluid instillation; an intraperitoneal drain; and local anaesthetic applied to the peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic).There is low to moderate-quality evidence that subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic and warmed and humidified insufflating gas may not make a difference to the incidence or severity of STP.There is low-quality evidence that gasless laparoscopy may increase the severity of STP, compared with standard treatment.Few studies reported data on adverse events. Some potentially useful interventions have not been studied by RCTs of gynaecological laparoscopy.