A double-blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial of intraperitoneal bupivacaine in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal local anesthetics have been investigated in several laparoscopic procedures that demonstrate improved postoperative pain control and reduced length of hospital stay. No published studies to date address the effectiveness of IP local anesthetics in laparoscopic gastric bypass patients (LRYGB). STUDY DESIGN: Between October 2004 and March 2005, 133 patients were prospectively studied to evaluate the efficacy of IP bupivacaine (IPB) in LRYGB. Patients were randomized to receive either bupivacaine (study group) or saline (control group), which was administered over the esophageal hiatus before dissection and bypass. All procedures were performed in a University-affiliated community-based hospital by three experienced laparoscopic gastric bypass surgeons. Outcomes variables included postoperative pain and narcotic use, length of stay, antiemetic use, cost, and pulmonary function. RESULTS: There were 65 patients within the study group and 68 control patients, with equivalent patient demographics (p > 0.05). A statistically significant decrease in oral narcotic (hydrocodone/acetaminophen, Lortab Elixir, UCB) use was seen in the experimental group relative to the control group (23.8 +/- 2.2 mL versus 33.7 +/- 3.0 mL). Material cost was greater by $0.36 per patient in the study group. All other outcomes variables (ie, length of stay, postoperative IV narcotic use, incentive spirometer volumes, visual analog pain scale, and antiemetic use) showed no considerable differences. CONCLUSIONS: IPB use during LRYGB revealed a statistically significant difference only in postoperative oral narcotic use. Possibly, the IPB can limit or prevent peritoneal irritation and reduce the need for longer narcotic use. Clinical significance was not demonstrated by our outcomes variables.

A randomized trial of endoscopic and fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Early postpyloric feeding is considered the accepted method of nutrition support in critically ill patients. Endoscopic and fluoroscopic techniques are associated with the highest percentage of successful placement. The purpose of this study was to compare endoscopic vs fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients. METHODS: This is a randomized prospective clinical trial. Forty-three patients were randomized to receive feeding tubes by endoscopic or fluoroscopic technique. All procedures were performed at the bedside in the critical care unit. A soft small-bore nonweighted feeding tube was used in all cases. Successful placement was confirmed by either an abdominal x-ray for endoscopic technique or a fluoroscopic radiograph for fluoroscopic technique. RESULTS: Postpyloric feeding tubes were successfully placed in 41 of 43 patients (95%). The success rate using endoscopic technique was 96% (25 of 26), whereas the rate using fluoroscopy was 94% (16 of 17). The average time of successful placement was 15.2 +/- 2.9 (mean +/- SEM) minutes for endoscopic placement and 16.2 +/- 3.2 minutes for fluoroscopic placement, which was not statistically significant (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic and fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes can safely and accurately be performed at the bedside in critically ill patients. Our results showed no significant difference in the success rate or time of placement between endoscopic vs fluoroscopic placement of postpyloric feeding tubes.