Transversus abdominis plane infiltration for laparoscopic gastric banding: A pilot study

Application of the quality of recovery-40 questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in gastric cancer

Patient reported outcomes is currently considered to be an important supplement to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) clinical practice. The Quality of Recovery-40 Questionnaire (QoR-40) is one of the most frequently used and validation tool to assess the subjective feelings of quality of life after surgery. The present study aimed to use the QoR-40 to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS protocols in gastric cancer from the perspective of patient-reported quality of recovery. The study was designed as a prospective, non-randomized clinical trial, conducted in a single center. Patients in our hospital who were scheduled to undergo radical surgery for gastric cancer were divided into ERAS group and control group (Contr group). The QoR-40 were administered one day before surgery (Baseline) and on postoperative day 1, 3, 6, and 30. The difference in QoR-40 scores between the ERAS and Contr groups was compared by repeated-measures ANOVA. A total of 200 patients completed the study, including 100 patients in the ERAS group and 100 patients in the Contr group. The Baseline time point QoR-40 scores of the ERAS and Contr groups were 179.68 ± 14.46 and 180.12 ± 17.12, respectively, and no significant difference was noted between the two groups (p = 0.845). The postoperative QoR-40 score of the ERAS group was significantly higher than that of the Contr group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006). This study demonstrated that, in terms of patient-reported quality of recovery, the postoperative recovery effect of ERAS protocols in gastric cancer is significantly better than that of the traditional treatment model.

Regional anaesthesia for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, visceral, non-oncological surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, non-oncological visceral surgery in adults is challenging. Regional anaesthesia could be a promising component in multimodal pain management.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment. Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest/during movement after 24 h, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and the number of patients with postoperative paralytic ileus.

RESULTS

82 trials were included. Peripheral regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia may result in a slight reduction of pain intensity at rest at 24 h (mean difference (MD) - 0.72 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.91 to - 0.54; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), which was not clinically relevant. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect on pain intensity during activity at 24 h (MD -0.8 points; 95%CI - 1.17 to - 0.42; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the incidence of block-related adverse events. In contrast, neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) may reduce postoperative pain intensity at rest in a clinical relevant matter (MD - 1.19 points; 95%CI - 1.99 to - 0.39; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), but the effect is uncertain during activity (MD - 1.13 points; 95%CI - 2.31 to 0.06; I2 = 95%; very low-certainty evidence). There is uncertain evidence, that neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) increases the risk for block-related adverse events (relative risk (RR) 5.11; 95%CI 1.13 to 23.03; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms that regional anaesthesia might be an important part of multimodal postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic visceral surgery, e.g. in patients at risk for severe postoperative pain, and with large differences between surgical procedures and settings. Further research is required to evaluate the use of adjuvants and the additional benefit of regional anaesthesia in ERAS programmes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021258281.

Single-Shot Regional Anesthesia for Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic bariatric surgeries can cause intense postoperative pain. Opioid medication can alleviate the pain but can have harmful side effects especially in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. To promote early recovery, enhanced recovery after surgery guideline advises minimizing opioid use and opting for alternative analgesics. This paper aims to investigate the effect of regional anesthesia techniques through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Primary outcome is postoperative morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h.

METHODS

Search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and EMBASE, from the inception until 10 January 2023. The eligibility criteria were determined by PICOS, including postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores, time to ambulate, use of additional analgesics, and adverse events. The quality assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias 2 Tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Funnel plots were used to evaluate publication bias.

RESULTS

We included 22 studies in quantitative synthesis. A review of 12 studies found that all techniques had a lower mean consumption of opioids compared to placebo or no intervention, with TAP block having the greatest reduction. The quality of evidence for postoperative pain, PONV, time to deambulate, and use of rescue analgesics, was rated as moderate, with TAP block being the most effective intervention. There was no publication bias in any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

TAP block is superior to other regional anesthesia techniques in reducing opioid consumption, pain, PONV, and use of rescue analgesics in bariatric surgery. However, further research is needed.

Postoperative recovery: how and when is it assessed: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus about the type of instrument with which to assess postoperative recovery or the time points when assessments are most appropriate. It is also unclear whether instruments measure the four dimensions of postoperative recovery, that is physical, psychological, social, and habitual recovery. This scoping review had three objectives: (1) to identify and describe instruments used in clinical trials to assess postoperative recovery; (2) to determine how, when, and the number of times postoperative recovery was measured; and (3) to explore whether the four dimensions of postoperative recovery are represented in the identified instruments.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. The search terms were related to three search strands: postoperative recovery, instrument, and clinical trials. The limits were English language and publication January 2010 to November 2021. In total, 5015 studies were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 198 studies were included in the results. We identified 20 instruments measuring postoperative recovery. Different versions of Quality of Recovery represented 81.8% of the included instruments. Postoperative recovery was often assessed at one time point (47.2%) and most often on postoperative day 1 (81.5%). Thirteen instruments had items covering all four dimensions of postoperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing recovery is important to evaluate and improve perioperative care. We emphasise the importance of choosing the right instrument for the concept studied and, if postoperative recovery is of interest, of assessing more than once. Ideally, instruments should include all four dimensions to cover the whole recovery process.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Local Wound Infiltration for Postoperative Pain After Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Resection: a Randomized, Double-Blinded Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the extensive administration of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program, postoperative pain remains a major concern for patients. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and local wound infiltration (LWI) are two techniques that have been widely applied in abdominal surgery. However, these two techniques have rarely been compared in terms of their analgesic effects on patients that undergo laparoscopic colorectal surgery with the ERAS program.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blinded study was conducted in this study. Briefly, 174 patients that underwent colorectal surgery with the ERAS program were randomly allocated to TAP block treatment (TAP group) or local wound infiltration (LWI group). All patients were assessed for their pain scores at rest and in motion at 6, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery. The administration frequency of bolus for PCIA and the use amount of rescue analgesics (parecoxib) were recorded. Finally, the patients were monitored with follow-up surveys on their postoperative function recovery, complications, lengths of stay, treatment cost, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

In terms of the pain scores at rest and in motion, the two groups revealed no significant difference throughout the study sessions, and no difference was found in the administration frequency of bolus and the use amount of parecoxib. Moreover, the two groups demonstrated similar results in their postoperative recovery, and no significant differences were found in terms of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with local wound infiltration, transversus abdominis plane block is not significantly advantageous for postoperative pain control and recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery with the ERAS program. However, local wound infiltration might be preferred since it is available with less technical difficulties.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetics in Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and intraperitoneal local anesthetics (IPLA) are widely investigated techniques that potentially improve analgesia after bariatric surgery. The analgesic efficacy of TAP block has been shown in previous studies, but the performance of TAP block can be difficult in patients with obesity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the analgesic efficacy of TAP block and IPLA. An alternative technique is useful in clinical setting when TAP block is not feasible.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until August 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques. The primary outcome was cumulative morphine consumption at 24 h. Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain score at rest and on movement at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h; postoperative nausea and vomiting; and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

We included 23 studies with a total of 2,178 patients. TAP block is superior to control in reducing opioid consumption at 24 h, improving pain scores at all the time points and postoperative nausea and vomiting. The cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h for IPLA is less than control, while the indirect comparison between IPLA with PSI and control showed a significant reduction in pain scores at rest, at 2 h, and on movement at 12 h, and 24 h postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Transversus abdominis plane block is effective for reducing pain intensity and has superior opioid-sparing effect compared to control. Current evidence is insufficient to show an equivalent analgesic benefit of IPLA to TAP block.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Appears to Be Effective and Safe as a Part of Multimodal Analgesia in Bariatric Surgery: a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

Pain after bariatric surgery can prolong recovery. This patient group is highly susceptible to opioid-related side effects. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines strongly recommend the administration of multimodal medications to reduce narcotic consumption. However, the role of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (USG-TAP) block in multimodal analgesia of weight loss surgeries remains controversial.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was performed in four databases for studies published up to September 2019. We considered randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of perioperative USG-TAP block as a part of multimodal analgesia in patients with laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Results

Eight studies (525 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed lower pain scores with USG-TAP block at every evaluated time point and lower opioid requirement in the USG-TAP block group (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 7.59 mg; 95% CI − 9.86, − 5.39; p < 0.001). Time to ambulate was shorter with USG-TAP block (WMD = − 2.22 h; 95% CI − 3.89, − 0.56; p = 0.009). This intervention also seemed to be safe: only three non-severe complications with USG-TAP block were reported in the included studies.

Conclusion

Our results may support the incorporation of USG-TAP block into multimodal analgesia regimens of ERAS protocols for bariatric surgery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11695-020-04973-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the role of laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block in gastric bypass surgery: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating the efficacy of a laparoscopically guided, surgical transversus abdominis plane (TAP) and rectus sheath (RS) block in reducing analgesic consumption while improving functional outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

METHODS

150 patients Living with obesity undergoing elective laparoscopic Roux-En-Y gastric bypass for obesity will be recruited to this double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial from a Bariatric Centre of Excellence over a period of 6 months. Patients will be electronically randomised on a 1:1 basis to either an intervention or placebo group. Those on the intervention arm will receive a total of 60 mL 0.25% ropivacaine, divided into four injections: two for TAP and two for RS block under laparoscopic visualisation. The placebo arm will receive normal saline in the same manner. A standardised surgical and anaesthetic protocol will be followed, with care in adherence to the Enhanced Recovery after Bariatric Surgery guidelines.

ANALYSIS

Demographic information and relevant medical history will be collected from the 150 patients enrolled in the study. Our primary efficacy endpoint is cumulative postoperative narcotic use. Secondary outcomes are peak expiratory flow, postoperative pain score and the 6 min walk test. Quality of recovery (QoR) will be assessed using a validated questionnaire (QoR-40). Statistical analysis will be conducted to assess differences within and between the two groups. The repeated measures will be analysed by a mixed modelling approach and results reported through publication.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained (20170749-01H) through our institutional research ethics board (Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board) and the study results, regardless of the outcome, will be reported in a manuscript submitted for a medical/surgical journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Pre-results NCT03367728.

Quality of Recovery After Low-Pressure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Facilitated by Deep Neuromuscular Blockade: A Randomized Controlled Study

Background

The use of low intra-abdominal pressure (<10 mmHg) reduces postoperative pain scores after laparoscopic surgery.

Objective

To investigate whether low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with deep neuromuscular blockade improves the quality of recovery after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

Design, setting and participants

In a single-center randomized controlled trial, 64 live kidney donors were randomly assigned to 6 or 12 mmHg insufflation pressure. A deep neuromuscular block was used in both groups. Surgical conditions were rated by the five-point Leiden-surgical rating scale (L-SRS), ranging from 5 (optimal) to 1 (extremely poor) conditions. If the L-SRS was insufficient, the pressure was increased stepwise.

Main outcome measure

The primary outcome measure was the overall score on the quality of recovery-40 (QOR-40) questionnaire at postoperative day 1.

Results

The difference in the QOR-40 scores on day 1 between the low- and standard-pressure group was not significant (p = .06). Also the overall pain scores and analgesic consumption did not differ. Eight procedures (24%), initially started with low pressure, were converted to a standard pressure (≥10 mmHg). A L-SRS score of 5 was significantly more prevalent in the standard pressure as compared to the low-pressure group at 30 min after insufflation (p < .01).

Conclusions

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum facilitated by deep neuromuscular blockade during LDN does not reduce postoperative pain scores nor improve the quality of recovery in the early postoperative phase. The question whether the use of deep neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic surgery reduces postoperative pain scores independent of the intra-abdominal pressure should be pursued in future studies.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at clinicaltrial.gov before the start of the trial (NCT02146417).

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2015

This paper is the thirty-eighth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2015 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

Comparison of the effectiveness of low pressure pneumoperitoneum with profound muscle relaxation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to optimize the quality of recovery during the early post-operative phase: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Since technique modifications of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, e.g. retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy or hand-assistance, have not shown significant benefit regarding safety or improvement of recovery, further research should focus on improving postoperative recovery. The use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has shown to significantly reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopy. To facilitate the use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum, deep neuromuscular block will be used.

METHODS/DESIGN

This trial is a phase IV, single center, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial in which 64 patients will be randomized to: low pressure pneumoperitoneum (6 mmHg) and deep neuromuscular block or normal pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) and deep neuromuscular block. Deep neuromuscular block is defined as post tetanic count < 5. Primary outcome measurement will be Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (overall score) on day 1.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first randomized study to assess the combination of low pressure pneumoperitoneum in combination with deep neuromuscular block from a patients' perspective. The study findings may also be applicable for other laparoscopic procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at trials.gov (NCT02146417) in July 2014.