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 We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021.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.

Incidental giant cystic pheochromocytoma: a case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Pheochromocytoma is a tumour arising from the adrenal medulla, which secretes catecholamines. Approximately 20% of pheochromocytomas are cystic and more likely to be asymptomatic. They should be surgically resected as all have a malignant potential and pose cardiovascular risk. Case presentation: We report the case of a 61-year-old female patient admitted electively for laparoscopic adrenalectomy for a large cystic pheochromocytoma detected incidentally. Diagnosis was confirmed preoperatively by elevated 24-h urinary metanephrines. The patient was treated preoperatively with alpha and beta blockade. Surgery was without complication; she had an uneventful postoperative recovery and no evidence of recurrence at one-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the necessity of investigating for biochemical function in all adrenal lesions by measuring metanephrines, even when entirely cystic on imaging. Given the surgical and anaesthetic risk in resection of pheochromocytoma, attaining a preoperative diagnosis allows for careful preoperative planning and safe surgery.

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery.

BACKGROUND: With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis. RESULTS: In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.

A multispecialty study of determining the possibility of pregnancy and the documentation of pregnancy status in surgical patients: a cause for concern?

BACKGROUND: Determining the possibility of pregnancy and the documentation of pregnancy status are important considerations in the assessment of females of reproductive age when admitted to hospital. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine the adequacy of the documentation of pregnancy status and possibility of pregnancy across multiple surgical specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective audit of surgical specialties (general, orthopaedics, urology, vascular, maxillofacial, ENT, gynaecology and neurosurgery) within NHS Tayside, in May 2015. RESULTS: A total of 129 females of reproductive age were admitted; 69 (53.5%) elective and 60 (46.5%) emergencies. Eighty-four patients (65%) were asked 'Is there any possibility of pregnancy?' Pregnancy status was documented in 74% of patients. Eleven (8.5%) patients were not asked about possibility of pregnancy and did not have a documented pregnancy status. Documentation of the use of contraception, sexual activity and date of last menstrual period was noted in 53 (41.1%), 31 (24.0%) and 66 (51.2%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in the documentation of pregnancy status and possibility of pregnancy amongst surgical specialties. This was not an issue in gynaecology but is an issue in ENT, maxillofacial, neurosurgery, vascular and general surgery. The reasons are unclear. Documentation of pregnancy status using ßhCG assays should be the gold standard, and national guidelines are required.

Current standards for assessing pregnancy status before surgery are subjective and should be replaced with definitive, objective evidence.

We report a case of a young woman admitted electively for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and again three days post-operatively as an emergency with profuse vomiting and abdominal pain. She underwent diagnostic laparoscopy, and a small gastric perforation was found at the site of the fundoplication and this was suture-repaired. On both admissions, she was "screened" for pregnancy as per current guidelines. On the second admission, following a CT scan, she was found to have a gravid uterus with a foetus of 16-18 weeks' gestation. In the opinion of the authors, this case highlights that current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines may be insufficient and could lead to unnecessary harm either to mother or foetus pre-, peri- or post-operatively.

Current hurdles in the management of eosinophilic oesophagitis: the next steps.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, antigen mediated disease of the disease of the oesophagus that may present in both adults and children. It is characterised by intermittent dysphagia, food bolus obstruction and weight loss. The pathogenesis is incompletely understood but is thought to culminate in poor compliance, or reduced distensibility. The condition is being reported and studied in the literature with increasing incidence, although equally it is highly likely that the diagnosis is being missed altogether with alarming frequency. Diagnosis of the condition requires at least one oesophageal biopsy with an eosinophil count greater than 15 per high power field. Endoscopic features include trachealisation, furrows, white exudate, narrowing and in the most severe cases stricture formation although none are pathognomonic of the condition. Therapy is often not required, but in the acute setting may take the form of dietary therapy or topical steroids. Long term maintenance therapy is usually only required in the most severe cases and the most effective treatment is the subject of ongoing research. There are a number of hurdles to be overcome in the management of patients with EoE. These include; improving our understanding of the aetiology of the condition, investigating the individual causes, assessing the true disease severity and planning the best long term maintenance therapy. Distinguishing EoE from EoE gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is also a hurdle because the two conditions, both being common, can co-exist. In order to overcome these hurdles, a multifaceted approach is required. The management of food bolus obstruction requires a management algorithm that is accepted and endorsed by a number of specialties. National and international disease registers should be established in order to facilitate future research but more importantly to address areas where further education or increased diagnostic capabilities may be required. Assessment of disease severity should become a key goal, and the development of specific biomarkers for EoE should also be a priority. Finally, randomised controlled trials of new agents are required to assess the best treatment in both the acute and long term setting.