Local injection of bupivacaine after rubber band ligation of hemorrhoids: prospective, randomized study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine if local injection of bupivacaine after hemorrhoidal banding causes a decrease in pain and in the incidence of associated symptoms. METHODS: After hemorrhoidal banding, patients were randomly assigned to receive a local injection of bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, an injection of normal saline, or no injection, just superior to each band. Pain was graded by the patient and by the study nurse within 30 minutes, and any associated symptoms were recorded. At intervals 6, 24, and 48 hours postbanding, the patient recorded pain, limitation of activities, and analgesic requirements. Associated symptoms while at home were recorded. RESULTS: Of 115 patients studied, 42 received bupivacaine injection, 42 received normal saline injection, and 31 received no injection. In patients receiving bupivacaine compared with no injection, within 30 minutes postbanding there was a significant reduction in pain graded by the patient (P = 0.000002) and by the nurse (P = 0.000005) and a significant reduction in incidence of nausea (P = 0.01) and shaking (P = 0.008). However, in the bupivacaine group compared with the other two groups, at the intervals of 6, 24, and 48 hours postbanding there was no sustained reduction in the severity of pain and no reduction in analgesic requirements or limitation of normal activities. In the week after banding, there was no difference between groups in symptoms of nausea, shaking, lightheadedness, urinary retention, or bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine injection may be useful for reducing pain and associated symptoms long enough to tolerate a trip home from the outpatient department but does not show a sustained effect.

Reduced long-term survival following major peptic ulcer haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: The late outcome of patients who present with major peptic ulcer haemorrhage is unclear. An examination was made of the hypothesis that prognosis may be poor because many such patients have severe co-morbid diseases. METHODS: Some 121 patients treated endoscopically for severe peptic ulcer haemorrhage were followed for a median of 36 (range 30-76) months and outcome was compared with that of age- and sex-matched controls. RESULTS: Thirty patients (25 per cent) died during the follow-up period and Kaplan-Meier plots showed reduced survival in patients with ulcers (P < 0.01). Death was restricted largely to patients who had co-morbid diseases. Eight of the remaining 91 patients had further peptic ulcer bleeding; two of these were taking maintenance acid-reducing therapy and only one had significant dyspepsia before rebleeding. Eighty-three per cent of surviving patients had little or no dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS: The late prognosis of patients who present with major ulcer haemorrhage is poor, but most deaths are a consequence of co-morbid disease and not recurrent ulcer bleeding. Most patients have little dyspepsia and those who rebleed are largely free from dyspepsia.

The outcome of urgent surgery for major peptic ulcer haemorrhage following failed endoscopic therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To review the outcome of patients who underwent emergency surgery for major peptic ulcer haemorrhage after failed endoscopic therapy. To address whether 'conservative' or 'aggressive' surgery is best. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of emergency surgery for ulcer bleeding which could not be controlled by endoscopic therapy. SETTING: The four admitting units in the Lothian region of Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-seven patients who failed endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer and underwent emergency surgery between December 1990 and December 1995. Simple underrunning or excision of ulcer alone was done in 31 patients whilst 36 had more radical surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rebleeding and 30-day mortality rates. RESULTS: Rebleeding was significantly higher in patients treated by underrunning (7 versus 1, P < 0.013). There were fewer deaths in the radically treated group (5 versus 7, not significant). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing surgical operation for severe peptic ulcer haemorrhage after failed endoscopic therapy may be best served by a relatively aggressive approach.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial of 81 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in the treatment of acute appendicitis. DESIGN: A prospective randomized trial. SETTING: A university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Eighty-one patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis were prospectively randomized to undergo either LA or OA. The two groups were matched for age and sex. INTERVENTIONS: LA or OA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of days in hospital and time to full recovery. RESULTS: The mean hospital stay for LA was 3.23 days compared with 3.03 days for OA (p < 0.001). The mean number of narcotic injections required for patients in the LA group was 4.05 compared with 5.58 for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean time to complete recovery for patients in the LA group was 9.0 days compared with 16.2 days for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean operative time for LA was 73.8 minutes compared with 45.0 minutes for OA (p < 0.001). Three patients in the LA group had intra-abdominal abscesses (p > 0.25). No significant difference in wound infection rates was demonstrated (p > 0.05). Similarly, pain scores at 7 and 28 days showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With LA significantly fewer narcotic injections are required and there is a more rapid return to normal activities. LA takes longer to perform and was associated with three intra-abdominal abscesses. In cases of simple acute appendicitis the hospital stay for LA is significantly shorter.

Failures of endoscopic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer: an analysis of risk factors.

OBJECTIVES: The role of therapeutic endoscopy in bleeding peptic ulcer is well documented. Nevertheless, failures of endoscopic therapy occur, and such patients could be put at an increased risk of death by delays in definitive surgery. The aim of this study was to define factors associated with failed endoscopic therapy. METHODS: Endoscopic intervention was attempted in 326 consecutive patients presenting with bleeding peptic ulcer using injection or heater probe therapy. RESULTS: Endoscopic therapy was possible in 308 (94%) patients, and permanent hemostasis was achieved in 269 (82.5%) of these. Fifty-seven (17.5%) patients continued to bleed or rebled in hospital. Patients who presented with active hemorrhage, shock on admission, and the lowest hemoglobin concentration did less well than those without these risk factors (p < 0.001). A history of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin usage, coagulopathy, previous peptic ulceration, and concomitant cardiorespiratory disease did not predict outcome of endoscopic therapy. Age of the patient was not an independent risk factor for outcome of therapy. The position of a gastric ulcer did not affect outcome, but a posterior duodenal ulcer was significantly more often associated with failed endoscopic therapy than was the case with an anterior ulcer (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic interventional treatment should be offered to all high-risk bleeding ulcer patients; no subgroup of patients unlikely to benefit from therapy could be identified.

Acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage in anticoagulated patients: diagnoses and response to endoscopic treatment.

The underlying diagnosis and clinical course of 52 patients who presented with severe acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage while taking the anticoagulant warfarin is reviewed. A bleeding site was identified in 83% of cases, only slightly fewer than the 92% found in a control of group of 710 patients not taking warfarin who presented in the same four year period. The degree or duration of anticoagulation was unrelated to the frequency of establishing a diagnosis. The commonest diagnosis was peptic ulcer (25 cases) and endoscopic treatment by injection or heater probe was attempted in 23 of these. The outcome in this subgroup was compared with that in 50 closely matched control subjects who had similar risk factors for rebleeding from peptic ulcer. Permanent haemostasis was achieved in (91%) of the anticoagulated and in 92% of the control patients. There were no complications related to endoscopy. Patients who present with acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage while taking warfarin usually bleed from mucosal disease. They should be endoscoped after resuscitation and those with major bleeding from a peptic ulcer should be offered endoscopic treatment.

Combination adrenaline and ethanolamine endoscopic injection therapy does not impair peptic ulcer healing.

The acute effects of endoscopic injection therapy given for bleeding peptic ulcer and the impact of injection therapy upon peptic ulcer healing were assessed in 70 patients randomized to conservative treatment or injection with a combination of 1:100,000 adrenaline and 5% ethanolamine. Injection was not associated with acute complications nor did it affect the endoscopic findings 48 hours after injection. Ulcer healing on standard doses of H2 receptor drugs was 95% in injected patients and 93% in conservatively treated patients at 6 weeks.

Comparison of endoscopic injection therapy versus the heater probe in major peptic ulcer haemorrhage.

One hundred and twenty patients presenting with major peptic ulcer haemorrhage were randomised in a clinical trial comparing endoscopic injection and heater probe therapy. The two groups were well matched with regards to age, admission haemoglobin concentration, the presence of shock, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug usage and endoscopic findings. Permanent haemostasis was achieved in 87% of the injection group and 85% of the heater probe group. Hospital mortality, transfusion requirement and duration of admission were similar in both groups. Endoscopic injection and the heater probe represent equally effective therapy for peptic ulcer bleeding.

Mechanism of action of injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer.

The effects of intramucosal injection of 1:100,000 adrenaline, 5 per cent ethanolamine and normal saline were determined in experimentally created, acutely bleeding gastric mucosal wounds in rabbits. The mean(s.d.) bleeding rate was decreased from 2.3(0.4) to 0.2(0.02) ml/min by adrenaline (P < 0.01), but increased by 1 ml 5 per cent ethanolamine to 4.0(0.6) ml/min (P < 0.05). Normal saline had no haemostatic effect, suggesting that local tamponade is not important. In separate experiments endoscopic injections of 5 per cent ethanolamine, 1:100,000 adrenaline and normal saline were made in the gastric antrum of rabbits. After 48 h the degree of inflammation was greatest with ethanolamine but, despite tissue necrosis and venous thrombosis, neither endarteritis nor arterial thrombosis occurred. Injections of 5 per cent ethanolamine and 80 per cent ethanol placed next to the ear arteries of rabbits caused local ulceration and necrosis, but endarteritis and arterial thrombosis were again absent.

Endoscopic injection sclerosis: effective treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer.

One hundred and nine patients presenting with severe haemorrhage from benign peptic ulcers were randomised to either endoscopic injection sclerotherapy using a combination of 1:100,000 adrenaline and 5% ethanolamine or to conservative treatment. Only high risk patients with active bleeding or endoscopic stigmata of recent haemorrhage and accessible ulcers were considered. The two groups were well matched for age, shock, haemoglobin concentration, endoscopic findings, and consumption of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The group treated endoscopically had a significantly reduced rebleeding rate (12.5% v 47%, p less than 0.001). Rebleeding was successfully treated in some patients by injection sclerotherapy, other patients underwent urgent surgery. While there was a tendency towards a lower operation rate and lower transfusion requirements in the treated group, this failed to achieve statistical significance. The use of injection sclerotherapy in the conservatively treated group after rebleeding undoubtedly reduced the number of surgical operations. Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy is effective in the prevention of rebleeding in these patients.