加载中

    Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Loizides Sofronis,Gurusamy Kurinchi Selvan,Nagendran Myura,Rossi Michele,Guerrini Gian Piero,Davidson Brian R The Cochrane database of systematic reviews BACKGROUND:While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known. OBJECTIVES:To assess the benefits and harms of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to identify the best method of local anaesthetic wound infiltration with regards to the type of local anaesthetic, dosage, and time of administration of the local anaesthetic. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify studies of relevance to this review. We included randomised clinical trials for benefit and quasi-randomised and comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms. SELECTION CRITERIA:Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, trials comparing different local anaesthetic agents for local anaesthetic wound infiltration, and trials comparing the different times of local anaesthetic wound infiltration were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis models using RevMan. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS:Twenty-six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. All the 26 trials except one trial of 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Nineteen of the trials with 1263 randomised participants provided data for this review. Ten of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control. One of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration with two inactive controls, normal saline and no intervention. Two of the 19 trials had four arms comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration with inactive controls in the presence and absence of co-interventions to decrease pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Four of the 19 trials had three or more arms that could be included for the comparison of local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control and different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration. The remaining two trials compared different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration.Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seventeen trials randomised a total of 1095 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration (587 participants) versus no local anaesthetic wound infiltration (508 participants). Various anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine was the commonest local anaesthetic used. There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/280 (0%) in local anaesthetic infiltration group versus 0/259 (0%) in control group). The effect of local anaesthetic on the proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was imprecise and compatible with increase or no difference in serious adverse events (seven trials; 539 participants; 2/280 (0.8%) in local anaesthetic group versus 1/259 (0.4%) in control; RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; very low quality evidence). None of the serious adverse events were related to local anaesthetic wound infiltration. None of the trials reported patient quality of life. The proportion of participants who were discharged as day surgery patients was higher in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than in the no local anaesthetic infiltration group (one trial; 97 participants; 33/50 (66.0%) in the local anaesthetic group versus 20/47 (42.6%) in the control group; RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.28; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the length of hospital stay was compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (four trials; 327 participants; MD -0.26 days; 95% CI -0.67 to 0.16; very low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 cm) were lower in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than the control group at 4 to 8 hours (13 trials; 806 participants; MD -1.33 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -1.54 to -1.12; very low quality evidence) and 9 to 24 hours (12 trials; 756 participants; MD -0.36 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -0.53 to -0.20; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the time taken to return to normal activity between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the time taken to return to normal activity (two trials; 195 participants; MD 0.14 days; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.87; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported on return to work.Four trials randomised a total of 149 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration prior to skin incision (74 participants) versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration at the end of surgery (75 participants). Two trials randomised a total of 176 participants to four different local anaesthetics (bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, ropivacaine, neosaxitoxin). Although there were differences between the groups in some outcomes the changes were not consistent. There was no evidence to support the preference of one local anaesthetic over another or to prefer administration of local anaesthetic at a specific time compared with another. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic wound infiltration (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that infiltration reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials at low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment. 10.1002/14651858.CD007049.pub2
    Evidence-based management of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a PROSPECT review update. Barazanchi A W H,MacFater W S,Rahiri J-L,Tutone S,Hill A G,Joshi G P, British journal of anaesthesia BACKGROUND:Significant pain can be experienced after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This systematic review aims to formulate PROSPECT (PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT) recommendations to reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS:Randomised controlled trials published in the English language from January 2006 (date of last PROSPECT review) to December 2017, assessing analgesic, anaesthetic, or operative interventions for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults, and reporting pain scores, were retrieved from MEDLINE and Cochrane databases using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) search protocols. PROSPECT methodology was used, and recommendations were formulated after review and discussion by the PROSPECT group (an international group of leading pain specialists and surgeons). RESULTS:Of 1988 randomised controlled trials identified, 258 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The studies were of mixed methodological quality, and quantitative analysis was not performed because of heterogeneous study design and how outcomes were reported. CONCLUSIONS:We recommend basic analgesic techniques: paracetamol + NSAID or cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor + surgical site local anaesthetic infiltration. Paracetamol and NSAID should be started before or during operation with dexamethasone (GRADE A). Opioid should be reserved for rescue analgesia only (GRADE B). Gabapentanoids, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic, and transversus abdominis plane blocks are not recommended (GRADE D) unless basic analgesia is not possible. Surgically, we recommend low-pressure pneumoperitoneum, postprocedure saline lavage, and aspiration of pneumoperitoneum (GRADE A). Single-port incision techniques are not recommended to reduce pain (GRADE A). 10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.023
    Adjuncts to local anesthetic wound infiltration for postoperative analgesia: a systematic review. Bai Johnny Wei,An Dong,Perlas Anahi,Chan Vincent Regional anesthesia and pain medicine Local anesthetics (LAs) are commonly infiltrated into surgical wounds for postsurgical analgesia. While many adjuncts to LA agents have been studied, it is unclear which adjuncts are most effective for co-infiltration to improve and prolong analgesia. We performed a systematic review on adjuncts (excluding epinephrine) to local infiltrative anesthesia to determine their analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing properties. Multiple databases were searched up to December 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two reviewers independently performed title/abstract screening and full-text review. Inclusion criteria were (1) adult surgical patients and (2) adjunct and LA agents infiltration into the surgical wound or subcutaneous tissue for postoperative analgesia. To focus on wound infiltration, studies on intra-articular, peri-tonsillar, or fascial plane infiltration were excluded. The primary outcome was reduction in postoperative opioid requirement. Secondary outcomes were time-to-first analgesic use, postoperative pain score, and any reported adverse effects. We screened 6670 citations, reviewed 126 full-text articles, and included 89 RCTs. Adjuncts included opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, alpha-2 agonists, ketamine, magnesium, neosaxitoxin, and methylene blue. Alpha-2 agonists have the most evidence to support their use as adjuncts to LA infiltration. Fentanyl, ketorolac, dexamethasone, magnesium and several other agents show potential as adjuncts but require more evidence. Most studies support the safety of these agents. Our findings suggest benefits of several adjuncts to local infiltrative anesthesia for postoperative analgesia. Further well-powered RCTs are needed to compare various infiltration regimens and agents. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018103851) (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=103851). 10.1136/rapm-2020-101593