Intravenous Local Anesthetic Compared With Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic in Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Controlling perioperative pain is essential to improving patient experience and satisfaction following surgery. Traditionally opioids have been frequently utilized for postoperative analgesia. Although they are effective at controlling pain, they are associated with adverse effects, including postoperative nausea, vomiting, ileus, and long-term opioid dependency.Following laparoscopic colectomy, the use of intravenous or intraperitoneal infusions of lidocaine (IVL, IPL) are promising emerging analgesic options. Although both techniques are promising, there have been no direct, prospective randomized comparisons in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection. The purpose of this study was to compare IPL with IVL. METHODS: Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection. The 2 groups received equal doses of either IPL or IVL which commenced intra-operatively with a bolus followed by a continuous infusion for 3 days postoperatively. Patients were cared for through a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery program. The primary outcome was total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 3 postoperative days. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the IVL or IPL groups. Total opioid consumption over the first 3 postoperative days was significantly lower in the IPL group (70.9 mg vs 157.8 mg P < 0.05) and overall opioid consumption during the total length of stay was also significantly lower (80.3 mg vs 187.36 mg P < 0.05. Pain scores were significantly lower at 2 hours postoperatively in the IPL group, however, all other time points were not significant. There were no differences in complications between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Perioperative use of IPL results in a significant reduction in opioid consumption following laparoscopic colon surgery when compared to IVL. This suggests that the peritoneal cavity/compartment is a strategic target for local anesthetic administration. Future enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations should consider IPL as an important component of a multimodal pain strategy following colectomy.

Topical Versus Oral Metronidazole After Excisional Hemorrhoidectomy: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both topical and oral metronidazole have been shown to reduce pain after excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Although recent meta-analyses have demonstrated efficacy against placebo, there has been no comparison between the 2 routes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate whether topical or oral metronidazole provides the most analgesic properties after excisional hemorrhoidectomy. DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was performed. SETTING: This trial was conducted at 2 hospitals in New Zealand between March 2019 and February 2020. PATIENTS: Adults undergoing elective excisional hemorrhoidectomy for grade III/IV hemorrhoids were randomized. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either topical metronidazole ointment and an oral placebo versus oral metronidazole with a placebo ointment for 7 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was daily pain scores for 7 days, estimated using a generalized linear mixed model fitted with time and treatment arm and tested for interaction with time and treatment arm. Secondary outcomes included additional analgesia, return to normal activity, recovery scores, and adverse effects. RESULTS: A total of 120 participants were included, with 60 in each group. A unimodal peak of pain was recorded with the maximum at days 3 and 4, but there was no significant difference in resting pain scores, with a mean difference at day 3 of 0.47 (-0.48, 1.42). There were no significant differences for secondary outcomes. Fourteen (11.7%) participants were readmitted, without significant difference between groups. Fifty-nine percent of participants preferred topical analgesic compared with 31% who preferred oral and 9.7% who had no preference. LIMITATIONS: This was a pragmatic study in which we could not have stopped participants seeking other analgesics and with less than perfect complete compliance. CONCLUSION: Postoperative oral and topical metronidazole provide similar analgesia after excisional hemorrhoidectomy. The route should depend on patient preference, with topical administration potentially benefiting from improved antimicrobial stewardship and having less effect on the gut microbiome. See Video Abstract at http:/links.lww.com/DCR/B853 .METRONIDAZOL TÓPICO VERSUS ORAL DESPUÉS DE UNA HEMORROIDECTOMÍA POR ESCISIÓN: UN ENSAYO CONTROLADO ALEATORIO DOBLE CIEGO. ANTECEDENTES: Se ha demostrado que tanto el metronidazol tópico como el oral reducen el dolor después de una hemorroidectomía por escisión. Aunque los metaanálisis más recientes han demostrado eficacia frente al placebo, no ha habido comparación entre las dos vías. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo investigar si el metronidazol tópico u oral proporciona las propiedades más analgésicas después de una hemorroidectomía por escisión. DISEO: Se realizó un ensayo prospectivo, controlado, aleatorio, a doble ciego. AJUSTE: Este ensayo fue realizado en dos hospitales de Nueva Zelanda entre marzo de 2019 y febrero de 2020. PACIENTES: Se asignaron al azar pacientes adultos sometidos a hemorroidectomía por escisión electiva por hemorroides de grado III / IV. INTERVENCIONES: Los participantes fueron asignados al azar para recibir un ungüento de metronidazol tópico y un placebo oral versus metronidazol oral con un ungüento de placebo durante siete días. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El resultado primario fueron las puntuaciones diarias de dolor durante siete días, estimadas mediante un modelo lineal mixto generalizado ajustado tanto con el tiempo y el brazo de tratamiento y probado para la interacción con el tiempo y el brazo de tratamiento. Los resultados secundarios incluyen analgesia adicional, retorno a la actividad normal, puntuaciones de recuperación y efectos adversos. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó un total de 120 participantes, 60 en cada grupo. Se registró un pico de dolor unimodal con el máximo en los días 3 y 4, pero no hubo diferencias significativas en las puntuaciones de dolor en reposo, con una diferencia media en el día 3 de 0,47 (-0,48, 1,42). No hubo diferencias significativas para los resultados secundarios. Catorce (11,7%) participantes fueron readmitidos, sin diferencias significativas entre los grupos. El cincuenta y nueve por ciento de los participantes prefirió el tópico, en comparación con el 31% por vía oral y el 9,7% sin preferencia. LIMITACIONES: Este fue un estudio pragmático en el que no pudimos haber impedido que los participantes buscaran otros analgésicos, con un cumplimiento completo menos que perfecto. CONCLUSINES: El metronidazol posoperatorio por vía oral o tópica proporciona una analgesia similar después de una hemorroidectomía por escisión. La vía debe depender de la preferencia del paciente, y la administración tópica se beneficia potencialmente por una mejor protección de los antimicrobianos y un menor efecto sobre el microbioma intestinal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B853 . (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Local Anaesthesia Alone Versus Regional or General Anaesthesia in Excisional Haemorrhoidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.

Evaluating and improving current risk prediction tools in emergency laparotomy.

PURPOSE: Emergency laparotomy (EL) encompasses a high-risk group of operations, which are increasingly performed on a heterogeneous population of patients, making preoperative risk assessment potentially difficult. The UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) recently produced a risk predictive tool for EL that has not yet been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate and potentially improve the NELA tool for mortality prediction after EL. METHODOLOGY: We reviewed computer and paper records of EL patients from May 2012 to June 2017 at Middlemore Hospital (New Zealand). The inclusion criteria mirrored the UK NELA. We examined the NELA, Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II), and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs risk predictive tools for 30-day mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess calibration, and the c statistic, to evaluate discrimination (accuracy) of the tools. We added the modified frailty index (mFI) and nutrition to improve the accuracy of risk predictive tools. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients met the inclusion criteria, with an observed 30-day mortality of 7.9%. The NELA was the only well calibrated tool, with predicted 30-day mortality of 7.4% (p = 0.22). When combined with mFI and nutritional status, the c statistic for NELA improved from 0.83 to 0.88. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs, APACHE-II, and P-POSSUM had lower c statistics, albeit also showing an improvement (0.84, 0.81, and 0.74, respectively). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated the NELA tool to be most predictive of mortality after EL. The NELA tool would therefore facilitate preoperative risk assessment and operative decision making most precisely in EL. Future research should consider adding mFI and nutritional status to the NELA tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Retrospective observational cohort study.

Association between perioperative intraperitoneal local anaesthetic infusion and long-term survival and cancer recurrence after colectomy: follow-up analysis of a previous randomized controlled trial.

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.

Topical analgesia following excisional haemorrhoidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Post-operative pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy poses a particular challenge for patient recovery, as well as a burden on hospital resources. There appears to be an increasing role for topical agents to improve this pain, but their efficacy and safety have not been fully assessed. This systematic review aims to assess all topical agents used for pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two authors independently assessed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases to 27 June 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English that investigated topical agents following excisional haemorrhoidectomy were included. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 3639 records were identified. A final 32 RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis was performed on 9 RCTs that investigated glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) (5 for diltiazem, 2 for metronidazole and 2 for sucralfate). There were mixed significant changes in pain for GTN compared with placebo. Diltiazem resulted in significant reduction of pain on post-operative days 1, 2, 3 and 7 (p < 0.00001). Metronidazole resulted in significant reduction of pain on days 1 (p = 0.009), 7 (p = 0.002) and 14 (p < 0.00001). Sucralfate resulted in signification reduction of pain on days 7 and 14 (both p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Topical diltiazem, metronidazole and sucralfate appear to significantly reduce pain at various timepoints following excisional haemorrhoidectomy. GTN had mixed evidence. Several single trials identified other promising topical analgesics.

Intraperitoneal Tramadol in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesic regimes are required to treat pain. Intraperitoneal (IP) agents, such as local anesthetics (LAs), have been shown to reduce pain after abdominal surgery. Other IP analgesics have been tested in several randomized control trials (RCTs), but no reviews or guidelines have evaluated their use. Tramadol is an effective oral and intravenous analgesia with recent evidence supporting the use of IP tramadol (IPT). We aimed to review the efficacy of IPT as an adjunct to intraperitoneal local anesthetics (IPLAs) for pain relief after abdominal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant articles were identified by two independent reviewers from MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines up to January 2019. Only RCT comparing IPT + IPLA with IPLA alone were included. Outcomes recorded were the postoperative analgesic requirement, pain scores at 4 h and 24 h and adverse events. Data were analyzed with Review Manager, version 5.3. RESULTS: A total of five RCTs (4× laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 1× abdominal hysterectomy) were included in this review from 419 studies screened. All doses were given as a single bolus. Pain relief requirements over the first 24 h weres less in the IPT + IPLA groups when compared with those in IPLA alone. Pain scores were less for IPT + IPLA groups at 4 h and 24 h. There were no significant differences in adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, IPT, in combination with IPLA, is effective in the management of acute postoperative pain and reduces the total amount of pain relief consumed in the first 24 h after surgery. Studies reporting the use of IPT + IPLA reported no toxicity or systemic adverse events. Further research into standardizing the dosing of IPT to optimize its effectiveness and further reduce the additional analgesic requirement is indicated.

The impact of computed tomography-assessed sarcopenia on outcomes for trauma patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcopenia is the progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass, strength and general decline in function associated with age, and has previously been shown to be a predictor of poor outcomes following surgery. Computed tomography (CT)-assessed sarcopenia has been proposed to be an independent predictor of outcomes for trauma patients. This systematic review aims to determine the impact of CT-assessed sarcopenia on patient mortality following trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched from database inception to 26 November 2018. Bibliographies of included articles were hand searched for potential articles. All observational studies which included trauma patients who had skeletal muscle mass or density assessed by CT were included in the review. Two authors independently performed the search with decisions reached by consensus. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager v5.3 using a random effects model. The primary outcome was all cause mortality, as established a priori. RESULTS: Following an initial search of 1984 records, a total of 20 retrospective observational studies were included for qualitative analysis. Ten of these studies consisting of a pooled, partly-overlapping, 2867 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There was a wide variation in the reported prevalence of sarcopenia (25.0-71.1%). Sarcopenia patients were at a significantly increased risk of mortality during inpatient stay (RR 1.96 [95%CI 1.30-2.94], p =  0.001), at 30 days (RR 1.60 [95%CI 1.21-2.13], p =  0.001) and at 1-year (RR 3.11 [95%CI 1.94-4.96], p <  0.00001). There was no significant difference in total complications encountered, ICU duration or total inpatient stay. CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia identified by CT is associated with increased risk of inpatient, 30-day, and 1-year mortality in trauma patients.

Intravenous Local Anaesthetic Compared with Intraperitoneal Local Anaesthetic in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Modern perioperative care strategies aim to optimise perioperative care by reducing the body's stress response to surgery. A major facet of optimising an abdominal surgery analgesia programme is using a multimodal opioid sparing approach. Local anaesthetics have shown promise and there has been considerable research into the most effective route for their administration. This review aims to determine if there is a difference in analgesic efficacy between intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) and intravenous local anaesthetic (IVLA). MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: In concordance with the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted to identify randomised control trials that compared IVLA with IPLA in abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of interest were opioid analgesia requirements and pain score assessed by visual analogue score. Data were extracted and entered into pre-designed electronic spreadsheets. RESULTS: This review has identified six papers that compared intravenous lignocaine to intraperitoneal lignocaine. This review showed significantly lower morphine consumption at 4 and 24 h in the intraperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in pain scores. CONCLUSION: From the analysis of these studies, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic had an analgesic benefit over intravenous lignocaine with regard to decreased opioid consumption for abdominal surgery. Further research investigating IVL combined with intraperitoneal local anaesthetic is warranted.

Intravenous lignocaine in colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery leads to morbidity during recovery including pain and fatigue. Intravenous (IV) lignocaine (IVL) has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects that may improve post-operative pain and recovery. The aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of IVL to other perioperative analgesia regimens for reducing pain and opioid consumption following colorectal surgery. METHODS: Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, a literature search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials that compared IVL with IV placebo or epidural anaesthesia in open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were opioid requirements and pain scores assessed by visual analogue score. Data were entered into pre-designed electronic spreadsheets. RESULTS: The literature search identified 2707 studies. A total of nine randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Five studies investigated IVL compared with IV placebo and four studies investigated IVL compared with epidural anaesthesia. Two out of the five studies comparing IVL and placebo showed statistically significant reductions in opioid consumption with IVL. There was a variable degree of improvement in pain scores when IVL was compared with epidural. Two studies showed a significant difference, with lower opioid consumption and pain scores in the epidural group. Laparoscopic and open procedures could not be compared between the IVL and placebo group. CONCLUSION: IVL has shown limited benefit towards reducing early pain and morphine consumption when compared with placebo in colorectal surgery. However, IVL did not show any significant reduction in pain or opioid consumption when compared with epidural. Further research investigating IVL combined with intraperitoneal local anaesthetic is warranted.