ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/methods , Anesthesia, Local/methods , Hemorrhoidectomy/methods , Hemorrhoids/surgery , Pain Management/methods , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , HumansABSTRACT
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.
