Intravenous Local Anesthetic Compared With Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic in Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Controlling perioperative pain is essential to improving patient experience and satisfaction following surgery. Traditionally opioids have been frequently utilized for postoperative analgesia. Although they are effective at controlling pain, they are associated with adverse effects, including postoperative nausea, vomiting, ileus, and long-term opioid dependency.Following laparoscopic colectomy, the use of intravenous or intraperitoneal infusions of lidocaine (IVL, IPL) are promising emerging analgesic options. Although both techniques are promising, there have been no direct, prospective randomized comparisons in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection. The purpose of this study was to compare IPL with IVL. METHODS: Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection. The 2 groups received equal doses of either IPL or IVL which commenced intra-operatively with a bolus followed by a continuous infusion for 3 days postoperatively. Patients were cared for through a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery program. The primary outcome was total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 3 postoperative days. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the IVL or IPL groups. Total opioid consumption over the first 3 postoperative days was significantly lower in the IPL group (70.9 mg vs 157.8 mg P < 0.05) and overall opioid consumption during the total length of stay was also significantly lower (80.3 mg vs 187.36 mg P < 0.05. Pain scores were significantly lower at 2 hours postoperatively in the IPL group, however, all other time points were not significant. There were no differences in complications between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Perioperative use of IPL results in a significant reduction in opioid consumption following laparoscopic colon surgery when compared to IVL. This suggests that the peritoneal cavity/compartment is a strategic target for local anesthetic administration. Future enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations should consider IPL as an important component of a multimodal pain strategy following colectomy.

Local Anaesthesia Alone Versus Regional or General Anaesthesia in Excisional Haemorrhoidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excisional haemorrhoidectomy has been traditionally performed under general or regional anaesthesia. However, these modes are associated with complications such as nausea, urinary retention and motor blockade. Local anaesthesia (LA) alone has been proposed to reduce side effects as well as to expedite ambulatory surgery. This systematic review aims to assess LA versus regional or general anaesthesia for excisional haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched to 13 January 2020. All randomised controlled trials comparing LA only versus regional or general anaesthesia in patients who received excisional haemorrhoidectomy were included. The main outcomes included pain, adverse effects and length of stay. RESULTS: Nine trials, consisting of six studies comparing local versus regional anaesthesia and three comparing LA versus general anaesthesia, were included. Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower relative risk for need of rescue analgesia (RR 0.32 [95% CI 0.16-0.62]), intra-operative hypotension (RR 0.17 [95% CI 0.04-0.76]), headache (RR 0.13 [0.02-0.67]) and urinary retention (RR 0.17 [95% CI 0.09-0.29]) for LA when compared with regional anaesthesia. There was mixed evidence for both regional and general anaesthesia in regard to post-operative pain. CONCLUSIONS: LA alone may be considered as an alternative to regional anaesthesia for excisional haemorrhoidectomy with reduced complications and reduction in the amount of post-operative analgesia required. The evidence for LA compared to general anaesthesia for haemorrhoidectomy is low grade and mixed.

Association between perioperative intraperitoneal local anaesthetic infusion and long-term survival and cancer recurrence after colectomy: follow-up analysis of a previous randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High concentrations of local anaesthetic have an anti-proliferative effect on colonic cancer in vitro. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) has shown analgesic benefit and improved recovery in the perioperative setting. The long-term effects of IPLA in colon cancer resection have not been examined. This study aims to review the survival and oncological outcomes of a previously conducted trial that compared perioperative IPLA with placebo. METHODS: Sixty patients underwent colonic resection for benign and malignant disease as part of a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study between September 2008 and November 2009. The IPLA group received instillation of intraperitoneal ropivacaine before dissection followed by a 3-day infusion. The placebo group was treated identically but with 0.9% saline solution. A follow-up analysis was conducted to evaluate overall survival, disease-free survival and recurrence specifically for patients undergoing resection for stages I-III colon cancer. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed, and the log-rank test was used to evaluate difference in survival between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of the 60 patients had stages I-III colon cancer and were included in this analysis. Nineteen patients were in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in overall survival or all-cause mortality. There was a higher incidence of cancer-specific mortality in the local anaesthetic group (P < 0.046). CONCLUSION: It does not appear that IPLA is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with colonic malignancy undergoing colectomy. Other studies are needed to analyse the long-term outcomes.

Intravenous Local Anaesthetic Compared with Intraperitoneal Local Anaesthetic in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Modern perioperative care strategies aim to optimise perioperative care by reducing the body's stress response to surgery. A major facet of optimising an abdominal surgery analgesia programme is using a multimodal opioid sparing approach. Local anaesthetics have shown promise and there has been considerable research into the most effective route for their administration. This review aims to determine if there is a difference in analgesic efficacy between intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) and intravenous local anaesthetic (IVLA). MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: In concordance with the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted to identify randomised control trials that compared IVLA with IPLA in abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of interest were opioid analgesia requirements and pain score assessed by visual analogue score. Data were extracted and entered into pre-designed electronic spreadsheets. RESULTS: This review has identified six papers that compared intravenous lignocaine to intraperitoneal lignocaine. This review showed significantly lower morphine consumption at 4 and 24 h in the intraperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in pain scores. CONCLUSION: From the analysis of these studies, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic had an analgesic benefit over intravenous lignocaine with regard to decreased opioid consumption for abdominal surgery. Further research investigating IVL combined with intraperitoneal local anaesthetic is warranted.

Analgesic effect of intraperitoneal local anesthetic in surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal local anesthetic (IPLA) reduces postoperative pain as shown by previous systematic reviews. The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy of IPLA between different types of procedure and to formulate GRADE recommendations for the use of IPLA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search for systematic reviews of the effect of IPLA, versus no IPLA or placebo, on pain after any surgical procedure. Databases included in the study were MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, and DARE. Two reviewers independently undertook searches, selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was by random effects. Recommendation was by GRADE. The main outcome measure was self-reported early postoperative pain scores. RESULTS: Searches uncovered nine systematic reviews. This study included randomized trials numbered 76, representing 4000 participants, 2022 in IPLA and 1978 in control groups. Six reviews scored at low risk of bias and three at high risk. Meta-analysis demonstrated that IPLA reduced the mean pain score (0-10 scale) by 0.95 point (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.17). Excluding laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the effect size increased to 1.52 (95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.88). Heterogeneity was high overall at I2 = 91.7% but on excluding laparoscopic cholecystectomy trials reduced to I2 = 31.3%. CONCLUSIONS: IPLA could be considered a viable option for early postoperative analgesia in certain laparoscopic operations. Further research on the effect of IPLA on procedures other than laparoscopic cholecystectomy would help clarify its place in a postoperative analgesia protocol.

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.

Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic in Pediatric Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Introduction Systematic reviews report intraperitoneal local anesthetic (IPLA) effective in adults but until now no review has addressed IPLA in children. The objective of this review was to answer the question, does IPLA compared with control reduce pain after pediatric abdominal surgery. Materials and Methods Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, trials registries, ProQuest, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Open Gray. STUDY SELECTION: Independent duplicate searching for randomized controlled trials of IPLA versus no IPLA/placebo in children ≤ 18 years of age, reporting pain, or opioid use outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent duplicate data extraction and quality assessment using standardized fields. Results The selection process uncovered three eligible published trials and one unpublished study, all in laparoscopy surgery. Qualitative synthesis suggested that IPLA may reduce pain scores, opioid use, time to first opioid, and the need for rescue analgesia, with no effect on hospital stay. Risk of bias was significant. Conclusions IPLA appears promising in pediatric surgery. The high absorptive capacity of the peritoneum and high peritoneal surface area to volume ratio in children presents a dose limitation. In comparison to adult surgery, IPLA has been understudied in pediatric surgery.

Historical aspects of appendicitis in children.

Evidence of appendicitis exists from ancient Egyptian mummies but the appendix was not discovered as an anatomical entity until the renaissance in Western European literature. Much confusion reigned over the cause of right iliac fossa inflammatory disease until the late 19th century, when the appendix was recognized as the cause of the great majority of cases. Coining the term 'appendicitis' and making the case for early surgery, Fitz in 1886 set the scene for recovery from appendicitis through operative intervention.

The effect of perioperative psychological intervention on fatigue after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is one of the main complaints after surgery and may last longer than physical symptoms. It prevents return to normal function and activity. Relaxation interventions, performed prior to abdominal surgery, have been shown to reduce pain, wound erythema, and systemic cortisol levels. However, there is a lack of data on the impact of this intervention on patient well-being, functional recovery, activities of daily living, and fatigue after discharge from hospital. METHODS: The study was a randomised single-blinded trial. Patients who were to undergo elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for any indication between April 2008 and May 2010 were screened for inclusion. Those in the intervention group attended a standardised 45 min relaxation session with a health psychologist and were given relaxation exercise CDs to take home. The control group did not have the intervention. Patients were followed for 30 days. Fatigue was measured using the identity-consequence fatigue scale. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were randomised. Fifteen patients were excluded after randomization for various reasons; hence, 60 patients were followed up and analysed. Both groups had similar fatigue at baseline. There was improved fatigue and consequence of fatigue on postoperative day 30 in the intervention group. There was no difference in fatigue at any other time point postoperatively. CONCLUSION: This was the first interventional study targeting fatigue after laparoscopic cholecystectomy by using a brief psychological relaxation intervention. It has shown a reduction of fatigue and impact of fatigue at 30 days postoperatively in the intervention group.

A brief relaxation intervention reduces stress and improves surgical wound healing response: a randomised trial.

Psychological stress has been shown to impair wound healing, but experimental research in surgical patients is lacking. This study investigated whether a brief psychological intervention could reduce stress and improve wound healing in surgical patients. This randomised controlled trial was conducted at a surgical centre. Inclusion criteria were English-speaking patients over 18 years booked to undergo elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy; exclusion criteria were cancellation of surgery, medical complications, and refusal of consent. Seventy five patients were randomised and 15 patients were excluded; 60 patients completed the study (15 male, 45 female). Participants were randomised to receive standard care or standard care plus a 45-min psychological intervention that included relaxation and guided imagery with take-home relaxation CDs for listening to for 3 days before and 7 days after surgery. In both groups ePTFE tubes were inserted during surgery and removed at 7 days after surgery and analysed for hydroxyproline as a measure of collagen deposition and wound healing. Change in perceived stress from before surgery to 7-day follow-up was assessed using questionnaires. Intervention group patients showed a reduction in perceived stress compared with the control group, controlling for age. Patients in the intervention group had higher hydroxyproline deposition in the wound than did control group patients (difference in means 0.35, 95% CI 0.66-0.03; t(43)=2.23, p=0.03). Changes in perceived stress were not associated with hydroxyproline deposition. A brief relaxation intervention prior to surgery can reduce stress and improve the wound healing response in surgical patients. The intervention may have particular clinical application for those at risk of poor healing following surgery.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic in abdominal surgery - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) can be used to modulate visceral nociception after abdominal surgery; however, this technique is not routinely used in open abdominal surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the clinical effects of IPLA in open abdominal surgery for metachronous outcomes including pain, metabolic response to surgery and gastrointestinal function. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted independently without language restriction. Relevant meeting abstracts and reference lists were manually searched. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.0 software. Post-operative clinical and metabolic outcomes of randomized controlled trials comparing IPLA versus no IPLA or placebo solution were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve trials were identified including eight randomized trials in gastrointestinal and gynaecological surgery. Post-operative pain was reduced but not opioid use. There was blunting of postoperative hyperglycaemia. There was no difference in post-operative cortisol response. Return of bowel function appeared to be quickened, although meta-analysis was not possible. CONCLUSION: The use of IPLA is safe and appears to have clinical benefits. However this technique has not been studied in optimized perioperative settings. Trials are needed to evaluate this method of visceral blockade further after major abdominal surgery.

Prioritization of patients with rectal bleeding for urgent outpatient colonoscopy--a pilot study.

AIM: Rectal bleeding is a common symptom in general practice and may be associated with colorectal neoplasia. Waiting-lists for outpatient colonoscopies and first specialist appointments are long. The aim of our study was to determine the value of presenting signs and symptoms in prioritising patients with rectal bleeding for urgent colonoscopy. METHOD: Patients were asked to fill out a 'Bowel symptoms Assessment Questionnaire' at their first visit to a Colorectal Clinic. Patients were then assessed by clinicians who referred them for further investigations as appropriate. Factors from the questionnaire (e.g. age, family history, perianal symptoms, and so on) were analysed to assess correlation with colorectal cancer or neoplasia. These were analysed using logistic regression, SPSS Answertree and 2x2 tables. RESULTS: 105 patients completed the questionnaire. Thirty patients had colonoscopy/barium enema. Fifteen patients had colorectal cancer (CRC) or neoplasia detected. There was a significant increase in risk of developing CRC or neoplasia in patients above the age of 67 or if they had a positive family history of CRC or neoplasia. CONCLUSION: We conclude that patients with rectal bleeding, above the age of 67 or those with a positive family history are at a higher risk of neoplasia and should receive priority access to colonoscopy prior to first specialist assessment.