Intraabdominal local anaesthetics for postoperative pain relief following abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized, double-blind, dose-finding study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Local anaesthetics administered intraabdominally have been found to reduce analgesic requirements postoperatively after hysterectomy. This study was designed to assess the optimal dose of local anaesthetics for best pain relief. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy were randomly divided into three groups to receive 10 ml h infusion of levobupivacaine intraabdominally postoperatively for 48 h in a double-blind manner: group L, 7.5 mg h; group M, 12.5 mg h and group H, 17.5 mg h. Pain intensity was measured using the numeric rating scale, ketobemidone consumption over 48 h was measured with a patient-controlled analgesia pump, recovery parameters, expiratory muscle strength, time to home readiness, plasma concentration of levobupivacaine and health-related quality of life were all measured at defined time points postoperatively. RESULTS: No differences were found between the active groups in pain intensity, recovery parameters or health-related quality of life. Pain intensity was maximal during 0-4 h and during coughing. Expiratory muscle strength decreased significantly during 0-4 h in all active groups, with no differences between the groups. Plasma concentration of levobupivacaine was below known toxic concentrations in humans, and no patient had symptoms of local anaesthetic toxicity. Health-related quality of life showed improved scores at 3 months after the operation compared with preoperative values, but no differences between the groups were found in any of the parameters. CONCLUSION: Satisfactory analgesia can be achieved with low doses of levobupivacaine administered intraabdominally, except during the early postoperative period. No advantages were seen in this study when higher doses of levobupivacaine were administered as a continuous infusion for postoperative pain relief.

Factors associated with symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction six years after primary operation of genital prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: To determine prevalence of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) symptoms in women six years after primary pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery and analyze predictive factors for these symptoms. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Three Swedish hospitals. SAMPLE: Women who underwent primary POP surgery in 1993 and had no subsequent POP surgery during the following six years. METHODS: Clinical data from patient records and a postal questionnaire concerning symptoms of PFD completed in 1999. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of PFD symptoms, predictive factors. RESULTS: Urinary incontinence episodes > or =weekly were reported by 41%, feeling of vaginal bulging by 18% and solid stool incontinence by 15%. Thirty nine percent were sexually active; 15% refrained completely from sexual activity because of own discomfort or pain and 46% had no sexual activity due to lack of or sick partner. Discomfort or pain during sexual activity was experienced by 42%. Previous incontinence surgery and urinary incontinence prior to POP surgery were predictive factors for urinary incontinence. Anterior repair was protective for the postoperative symptoms of incomplete bladder and bowel emptying and vaginal bulging. Posterior repair was a risk factor for incomplete bowel emptying and solid stool incontinence. The association between posterior repair and discomfort or pain during sexual activity was not significant. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of PFD symptoms six years after primary POP surgery seemed high. The extent of POP surgery was predictive for postoperative symptoms of urinary and bowel dysfunction but not for discomfort or pain during sexual activity.

Genital prolapse surgery after a shift in treatment tradition: an analysis of subsequent prolapse surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the shift in treatment tradition of genital prolapse surgery was followed by a change in the occurrence of subsequent prolapse surgery, and to analyze the complementary and recurrent surgery with respect to the size of the prolapse and the extent of the primary surgery. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients consecutively operated with primary prolapse surgery in three Swedish hospitals in two time periods: 261 patients in 1983 (Period I) and 281 patients in 1993 (Period II). Clinical data were obtained from the patient records. A follow-up period of 6 years was used for both periods. RESULTS: Subsequent prolapse surgery was seen significantly more often in Period II than in Period I (7.7 versus 2.7%), and after selective repairs compared with complete repairs (7.7 versus 3.2%). Despite a significant reduction in the use of posterior repair between the time periods, no significant increase was seen in complementary posterior repairs compared with complementary repair in any of the other compartments. Size of the prolapse at the primary surgery or hysterectomy did not seem to influence the occurrence of subsequent prolapse surgery. The postoperative complication rate was significantly higher after complete repairs than after selective repair, and especially when posterior repair was included in the operation. CONCLUSION: Subsequent prolapse surgery is slightly more common after selective repair than after complete repair. However, selective repairs are encumbered with a lower complication rate. The results of this study appear to be in favor of a restrictive use of 'prophylactic' posterior repair.

Primary surgery of genital prolapse: a shift in treatment tradition.

BACKGROUND: The use of complete repairs in genital prolapse surgery has been questioned because of the possible adverse effects of the surgery on the urogenital and sexual function and selective repairs have been advocated. The aims of this study were to establish information about genital prolapse surgery and to analyze whether a shift from extensive prolapse surgery with complete repairs to selective repairs occurred during a 10-year period. METHODS: A retrospective study of 610 consecutive patients operated upon for genital prolapse during 1983 (Period I) and 1993 (Period II) in a sample of three Swedish hospitals was conducted. Data were obtained from the patient records. 542 women had primary surgery and were analyzed with emphasis on demographic, clinical, and surgical data. RESULTS: The demographic and clinical data of the patients showed no significant differences between the two periods. In Period I, 69% of the patients underwent complete repair compared with 37% in Period II (p<0.001). The proportion of prolapse operations without posterior colporrhaphy increased significantly from the first to the second period from 14 to 43% (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The surgery for genital prolapse seems to have changed from complete repairs towards selective repairs and posterior colporrhaphy was more often avoided in the second period. The implication of this shift in surgical treatment on pelvic floor function is not known. Further studies are needed to disclose the effect of the surgery on pelvic floor function and dysfunction in the long term.

Postoperative pain after abdominal hysterectomy: a double-blind comparison between placebo and local anesthetic infused intraperitoneally.

Abdominal hysterectomy is associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain. We randomly divided 40 patients (ASA status I-II) undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy into 2 groups: group P received an infusion of normal saline 5 mL/h via a catheter placed intraperitoneally at the end of surgery, and group L received 0.25% levobupivacaine 12.5 mg/h (5 mL/h). Ketobemidone was administered IV via a patient-controlled analgesia pump as a rescue analgesic in all patients. The catheter was removed after 24 h. Incisional pain, deep pain, and pain on coughing were assessed 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, and 24 h after surgery by using a visual analog scale. Ketobemidone consumption during 0-72 h was recorded. Time to sit, walk, eat, and drink; home discharge; and plasma concentrations of levobupivacaine were also determined. Pain at the incision site, deep pain, and pain on coughing were all significantly less in group L compared with group P at 1-2 h after surgery. After 4 h, the mean visual analog scale pain scores at rest and during coughing remained <3 cm during most time periods. Total ketobemidone consumption during 4-24 h was significantly less in group L compared with group P (mean, 19 versus 31 mg, respectively). A less frequent incidence of postoperative nausea, but not vomiting, was also found during 4-24 h in group L compared with group P (P < 0.025). Total and free plasma concentrations of levobupivacaine were small. We conclude that levobupivacaine used as an infusion intraperitoneally after elective abdominal hysterectomy has significant opioid-sparing effects.

A randomised trial comparing open Burch colposuspension using sutures with laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh and staples in women with stress urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: To compare open Burch colposuspension using sutures with laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh and staples in women with stress urinary incontinence. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective randomised trial. SETTING: Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Borås County Hospital and Orebro University Hospital, Sweden. POPULATION: Women with genuine stress urinary incontinence or mixed incontinence with a predominantly stress component were included, and were randomised to either open colposuspension (n= 120) or laparoscopic colposuspension (n= 120). METHODS: Women were randomised to open colposuspension with sutures or laparoscopic colposuspension with polypropylene mesh and staples. Anaesthesia/operation time, blood loss, complications and other related surgical parameters were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective and subjective cure rates from 48-hour frequency-volume chart, a 48-hour pad test and a subjective assessment of the woman's incontinence and quality of life performed one year after surgery. RESULTS: Objective and subjective cure rates were higher after open compared with laparoscopic colposuspension (P < 0.001). Quality of life was improved following surgery in both groups (P < 0.0001) and the improvement was significantly greater in the open colposuspension group (P < 0.05) with regard to physical activity. Performing an open colposuspension was less time consuming (P < 0.0001), resulted in more blood loss (P < 0.0001), longer catheterisation time (P < 0.01), greater risk of urinary retention (P < 0.01) and a longer hospital stay (P < 0.0001) compared with performing a laparoscopic colposuspension. The rate of serious complications was low in both groups. CONCLUSION: Open colposuspension had a higher objective and subjective cure rate one year after surgery but with a greater blood loss, greater risk of urinary retention and a longer hospital stay than laparoscopic colposuspension.