The beneficial effects of preperitoneal catheter analgesia following colon and rectal resections: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Preperitoneal catheter analgesia following abdominal surgery has attracted interest in the last decade. We conducted this study to evaluate the benefits of preperitoneal catheter analgesia in managing pain after abdominal colon and rectal resections. METHODS: A total of 50 patients undergoing colon and rectal resections for benign and malignant diseases received analgesic medicines via an epidural catheter placed just prior to surgery and a preperitoneal catheter placed at the end of the surgical procedure. Patients were instructed to use the epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device freely and were randomized into two groups after obtaining the approval of the Institutional Review Board: Group A received 10 ml of levobupivacaine twice a day postoperatively via preperitoneal catheter and group B received only 10 ml of saline. Demographics, surgical characteristics, pain scores recorded four days following surgery, analgesic volume used from the epidural PCA, clinical outcomes (length of stay, time to first bowel movement, time to first passage of gas or stool, time to first oral intake) and respiratory function test results (preoperative vs. postoperative) were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographics or surgical characteristics between both groups. Pain scores were similar. Clinical outcomes and respiratory functions were comparable. The use of analgesic volume via epidural catheter was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Preperitoneal catheter analgesia significantly decreased the need for epidural drug consumption and proved to be a beneficial adjunct for postoperative pain management of patients who underwent colon and rectal resections.

Comparison of tissue adhesive and suturing in the repair of lacerations in the emergency department.

The objective of this study was to compare the applications of Histoacryl Blue (HAB) and suturing regarding cosmetic outcome, cost and patient and physician satisfaction in the emergency department (ED). A total of 92 consecutive adult patients with lacerations equal to or shorter than 5 cm were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to either HAB or suturing. Ten-day and three-month cosmetic outcomes were evaluated via visual analogue scale (VAS) by a blinded surgeon. Cosmetic outcome, cost and patient and physician satisfaction of both groups were compared. Only 52 patients completed the follow-up at three months. Twenty-eight had been repaired with sutures and 24 with HAB. The differences regarding ten-day and three-month cosmetic outcome scales between the patients repaired with HAB and sutures were not statistically significant. Application of HAB resulted in greater satisfaction of the patient and the physician (p=0.007 and p=0.0001, respectively). Costs of HAB were significantly lower than sutures (p=0.0001). It is concluded that HAB is a cheaper method of laceration repair and results in greater satisfaction of both patients and physicians, while cosmetic outcomes were comparable. These results suggest that HAB is a viable alternative to suturing for selected lacerations in the ED.