Microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia and conscious pain mapping for the diagnosis and management of pelvic pain.

Chronic pelvic pain is a complex disorder with multiple etiologies. Recently, the technique of microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia has been applied to chronic pelvic pain. The specialized technique of conscious pain mapping has been developed to aid in the diagnosis of these patients. This paper will review the history and usage of office and microlaparoscopy in general. It will then discuss specific applications for patients with acute or chronic pelvic pain.

Office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia.

Office laparoscopy under local anesthesia is especially suited to meet the current pressures of quality versus cost in an era of managed care. It is likely that this technique will soon become a major part of the practicing gynecologist's diagnostic operative armamentarium. Advantages of office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia are realized by the practitioner, the patient, and the managed care provider. Office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia is a safe, effective, and less costly tool for the evaluation of patients with many different indications. To date, the procedure has been primarily used for patients with infertility, chronic pelvic pain, and tubal ligation. The ease of scheduling, reduced costs, and rapid recovery suggest that it may be the preferred initial procedure for these patients.

Minilaparoscopy without general anesthesia for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

The timely diagnosis of intra-abdominal pathology continues to be an elusive problem. Delays in diagnosis and therapeutic decision making are continuing dilemmas in patients who are females of childbearing age, elderly, obese or immunosuppressed. Minilaparoscopy without general anesthesia potentially can provide an accurate, cost-effective method to assist in the evaluation of patients with acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopy without general anesthesia is not a new technique, but with the combination of two emerging factors--1) the introduction of new technology with the development of improved, smaller laparoscopes and instruments, and 2) the shifting of emphasis on healthcare to a more cost-effective managed care environment--its value and widespread utilization is being reconsidered. We report the case of a 22 year old female with an acute onset of increasing abdominal and pelvic pain. Despite evaluation by general surgery, gynecology, emergency room staff, as well as, non-invasive testing, a clear diagnosis could not be made. In view of this, minilaparoscopy without general anesthesia was performed and revealed an acute, retrocecal appendicitis. The diagnosis was made with the assistance from the conscious patient. The utilization of this technique greatly expedited the treatment of this patient. Full-sized laparoscopic equipment was then used to minimally invasively remove the diseased appendix under general anesthesia. Both procedures were well tolerated by the patient.

Office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia for chronic pelvic pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility, tolerance, and costs associated with a program of office laparoscopy under local anesthesia using fiberoptic microlaparoscopes (<2 mm) and accessory instrumentation (<2 mm) for the evaluation of patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP). DESIGN: Prospective, nonselected cohort study. SETTING: Office-based free-standing faculty practice at a tertiary care referral center. PATIENTS: All women with a history of CPP from February to June 1995 who required diagnostic laparoscopy were compared with a cohort of patients undergoing in office diagnostic laparoscopy for the evaluation of infertility during the same period. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent diagnostic office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia (OLULA) with supplemental intravenous sedation, as well as conscious pain mapping. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A specific questionnaire was developed to follow all aspects of patient acceptance and tolerance of the procedures, and all patients were queried preoperatively, and 30 minutes and 1 week postoperatively. Pain was evaluated with a modification of the McGill pain inventory. A subset of questions evaluated the length of time until usual activities were resumed, anxiety level, and general acceptance of the procedure including set-up, operative time, and recovery time until discharge. Overall, there was a high degree of patient acceptance and satisfaction with OLULA; however, women with CPP experienced greater intraoperative and postoperative pain than those with infertility. Some patients with CPP had a generalized visceral hypersensitivity to pain; all areas of the pelvis and bowel were sensitive, and pain was not completely blocked with local anesthesia. Average procedure length was similar for the two groups. Patients with CPP required greater postoperative analgesia and took longer to return to work. Conscious pain mapping identified a focal source of pain in three patients and generalized visceral hypersensitivity in a majority of patients with CPP. Neither of these were found in patients with infertility. Compared with traditional laparoscopy there was almost an 80% reduction in costs. CONCLUSION: Office laparoscopy under local anesthesia is safe and effective for the evaluation of patients with CPP and is less expensive than traditional laparoscopy. Although the procedure is better tolerated by women undergoing infertility evaluation, it was well tolerated by both groups. Conscious pain mapping helps identify potential areas of pelvic pain and helps further characterize patients with CPP.