Randomized clinical trial comparing day-care open haemorrhoidectomy under local versus general anaesthesia

Does the addition of perineal block enhance pain control after a haemorrhoidectomy? A prospective randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhoidectomy is associated with severe postoperative pain, a long rehabilitation, and QoL worsening for months. Most patients experience mild-to-moderate postoperative pain. We aimed to evaluate the intraoperative perineal block role for patients undergoing haemorrhoidectomy.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible patients with III-IV stage haemorrhoids were randomized to the experimental group (EG) with intraoperative perineal block and spinal anaesthesia and the control one (CG) only with spinal anaesthesia. During the postoperative period, the opioid consumption rate was evaluated as a primary endpoint, and the postoperative pain level according to VAS, systemic analgesics consumption, readmission, and complication rate, the timing of returning to work, patients' QoL, and overall satisfaction according to SF-36 were evaluated as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

One hundred patients completed the study (48 in EG and 52 in CG). Patients of the EG had less postoperative pain intensity (P < 0.0001), required less opioid analgesia (P = 0.03), and had longer pain-free postoperative periods (P = 0.0002). 90% of patients in the CG required additional NSAID injections for adequate analgesia compared with only 58% in the EG. The average hospital stays, complication rate, and average operation duration didn't reach clinical significance. General health evaluation according to the SF-36 score and the median satisfaction rate was better in the EG (P < 0.001 and P = 0.012, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of the perianal block is safe and effective and should be administered to appropriate patients undergoing anorectal surgery.

Global treatment of haemorrhoids-A worldwide snapshot audit conducted by the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons

AIM

There is no universally accepted treatment consensus for haemorrhoids, and thus, management has been individualized all over the world. This study was conducted to assess a global view of how surgeons manage haemorrhoids.

METHODS

The research panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) developed a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire evaluating surgeons' experience, volume and treatment approaches to haemorrhoids. The 44 multiple-choice questionnaire was available for one month via the ISUCRS email database and the social media platforms Viber and WhatsApp.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 1005 surgeons from 103 countries; 931 (92.6%) were in active practice, 819 (81.5%) were between 30 and 60 years of age, and 822 (81.8%) were male. Detailed patient history (92.9%), perineal inspection (91.2%), and digital rectal examination (91.1%) were the most common assessment methods. For internal haemorrhoids, 924 (91.9%) of participants graded them I-IV, with the degree of haemorrhoids being the most important factor considered to determine the treatment approach (76.3%). The most common nonprocedural/conservative treatment consisted of increased daily fibre intake (86.9%), increased water intake (82.7%), and normalization of bowel habits/toilet training (74.4%). Conservative treatment was the first-line treatment for symptomatic first (92.5%), second (72.4%) and third (47.3%) degree haemorrhoids; however, surgery was the first-line treatment for symptomatic fourth degree haemorrhoids (77.6%). Rubber band ligation was the second-line treatment in first (50.7%) and second (47.2%) degree haemorrhoids, whereas surgery was the second-line treatment in third (82.9%) and fourth (16.7%) degree symptomatic haemorrhoids. Rubber band ligation was performed in the office by 645(64.2%) of the participants. The most common surgical procedure performed for haemorrhoids was an excisional haemorrhoidectomy for both internal (87.1%) and external (89.7%) haemorrhoids - with 716 (71.2%) of participants removing 1, 2 or 3 sectors as necessary.

CONCLUSION

Although there is no global haemorrhoidal treatment consensus, there are many practice similarities among the different cultures, resources, volume and experience of surgeons around the world. With additional studies, a consensus statement could potentially be developed.

Local anesthesia versus saddle block for open hemorrhoidectomy: cost-analysis from a randomized, double blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits attributed to the use of local anesthesia (LA) for open hemorrhoidectomy (OH) in developed countries, this technique is still not considered as the first line technique in low-income countries such as Uganda; therefore, we aimed at comparing the cost of OH under LA versus Saddle block among patients with 3rd or 4th degree hemorrhoids.

METHODS

This trial was conducted from December 2021 to May 2022 among patients with primary uncomplicated 3rd or 4th degree hemorrhoids. The operating time, and direct costs in (US$) including medical and non-medical were recorded. We analysed the cost in the two groups (local anesthesia versus saddle block) using SPSS version 23.0.

RESULTS

Findings of fifty-eight patients were analysed including 29 participants per group. There was a significant difference in operating time and cost among the two groups (p < 0.05). The mean operating time was 15.52 ± 5.34(SD) minutes versus 33.72 ± 11.54 min for OH under LA and SB respectively. The mean cost of OH under LA was 57.42 ± 8.90 US$ compared to 63.38 ± 12.77US$ in SB group.

CONCLUSION

The use of local anesthesia for OH was found to have less operating time with high-cost effectiveness. Being affordable, local anesthesia can help to increase the turnover of patients who would otherwise wait for the availability of anesthesia provider. Policy makers should emphasize its applicability in low-income settings to help in the achievement of 2030 global surgery goals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202110667430356. Registered on 08/10/2021.

Effect of sacral erector spinae plane block on post-hemorrhoidectomy pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhoidectomy is a common surgical procedure associated with significant postoperative pain. The conventional analgesic methods used for hemorrhoidectomy often have adverse effects and may not provide adequate pain relief. The sacral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a newly introduced technique that has shown promise in various surgical procedures. This prospective, randomized, controlled trial aimed to evaluate the analgesic effects of sacral ESPB following hemorrhoidectomy.

METHODS

Seventy patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were divided into 2 groups: the control group and the sacral ESPB group. Bilateral sacral ESPB was performed in the sacral ESPB group, whereas no intervention was performed in the control group. The numeric rating scale at rest and during the active period (mobilizing) was used as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were the cumulative doses of tramadol, the number of patients who required rescue analgesia postoperatively, and quality of recovery-15 Turkish version patient recovery quality.

RESULTS

The sacral ESPB group had significantly low numeric rating scale scores at various time points (P < .05). More patients in the control group needed rescue analgesia during the postoperative period (P < .001). The dosages of tramadol consumption after the first 24 hours postoperatively were significantly lower in the sacral ESPB group compared with the control group (P < .001). Furthermore, quality of recovery-15 Turkish version scores were high in the sacral ESPB group (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that sacral ESPB is an effective method for post-hemorrhoidectomy pain management, reducing the need for additional analgesics and improving patient recovery.

Pain assessment following open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia versus saddle block: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is disparity in evidence on pain assessment post open hemorrhoidectomy (OH) using local anesthesia and its use in developing countries compared to developed countries. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the occurrence of postoperative pain following open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia versus saddle block for uncomplicated 3^rd or 4^th degree hemorrhoids.

METHODS

This was a prospective equivalence randomized, double blind controlled trial conducted from December 2021 to May 2022 among patients with primary uncomplicated 3^rd or 4^th degree hemorrhoids. Pain severity was assessed at 2, 4 and 6 h post open hemorrhoidectomy using visual analogue scale (VAS). Data was analysed using SPSS version 26 at a p < 0.05 as statically significant using visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

We recruited 58 participants in this study who underwent open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia or saddle block (29 participants per group). The sex ratio was of 1.15 of female to male and a mean age of 39 ± 13. VAS was found to be different at 2 h post OH compare to other time of pain assessment but not statically significant by area under the cover (AUC) (95% CI = 486-0.773: AUC = 0.63; p = 0.09) with a none significance by Kruskal-Wallis's test (p:0.925).

CONCLUSION

Local anesthesia was found to be having a similar pain severity occurrence in post operative period among patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy for primary uncomplicated 3^rd or 4^th degree hemorrhoids. Close monitoring of pain in postoperative period is mandatory especially at 2 h to assess need of analgesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202110667430356. Registered on 8^th October, 2021.

Perioperative costs of local or regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the outpatient setting: a systematic review of recent literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review, we carried out an assessment of perioperative costs of local or regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to find relevant data on costs and cost-effectiveness analyses of anesthesia regimens in outpatients, regardless of the medical procedure they underwent. The hypothesis was that local or regional anesthesia has a lower economic impact on hospital costs in the outpatient setting. The primary outcome was the average total cost of anesthesia calculated on perioperative costs (drugs, staff, resources used).

RESULTS

One-thousand-six-hundred-ninety-eight records were retrieved, and 28 articles including 27,581 patients were selected after reviewing the articles. Data on the average total costs of anesthesia and other secondary outcomes (anesthesia time, recovery time, time to home readiness, hospital stay time, complications) were retrieved. Taken together, these findings indicated that local or regional anesthesia is associated with lower average total hospital costs than general anesthesia when performed in the ambulatory setting. Reductions in operating room time and postanesthesia recovery time and a lower hospital stay time may account for this result.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of this systematic review, mainly the heterogeneity of the studies and the lack of cost-effectiveness analysis, the economic impact of the anesthesia regimes on healthcare costs appears to be relevant and should be further evaluated.

Open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia versus saddle block in western Uganda: a study protocol for a prospective equivalence randomized, double-blind controlled trial

Background

While open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia has been shown to be more cost-effective with shorter operation times and lower complication rates, local anesthesia is still not considered as a first-line technique in low-income countries like Uganda. The objective of this trial is to compare open hemorrhoidectomy using local anesthesia versus saddle block among patients with primary uncomplicated 3rd- or 4th-degree hemorrhoids in western Uganda.

Methods

The protocol for a prospective equivalence randomized, double-blind controlled trial was conducted among patients with primary uncomplicated 3rd- or 4th-degree hemorrhoids. Recruitment was started in December 2021 and is expected to end in May 2022. Consenting participants who require open hemorrhoidectomy indicated at Kampala International Teaching Hospital, Uganda, will be randomized into two groups of 29 patients per arm.

Discussion

The primary outcome of this study is to compare the occurrences of postoperative pain following open hemorrhoidectomy using the visual analog scale in an interval of 2, 4, and 6 h and 7 days postoperatively. Furthermore, the mean operative time from the induction of anesthesia to the end of the surgical procedure as well as the cost-effectiveness of the 2 techniques will be assessed in both groups. Open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia has the potential to offer benefits to patients but most importantly expediting return to baseline and functional status, shorter hospital stay by meeting the faster discharge criteria, and reduction in costs associated with reduced length of stay and complications.

Trial registration

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR202110667430356. Registered on 8 October 2021

Saddle block anesthetic technique for benign outpatient anorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Current American Society of Colorectal Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines for Ambulatory Anorectal Surgery endorse use of monitored anesthesia care, general anesthesia, or spinal anesthesia based on physician and patient preference. Although several studies support the use of monitored anesthesia care over general anesthesia, the literature regarding spinal anesthesia is limited and heterogenous due to small sample sizes and disparate spinal anesthesia techniques. Saddle block anesthesia is a form of spinal anesthesia that localizes to the lowermost sacral spinal segments allowing for preservation of lower extremity motor function and faster recovery. We accrued one of the largest reported cohort of anorectal procedures using saddle block anesthesia, as such, we sought to evaluate our institutional 12-year experience.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a benign anorectal procedure at our outpatient surgery center between July 2008-2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, surgical factors, perioperative times, and adverse events were collected from the electronic medical records. Saddle block anesthesia was generally performed in the preoperative area using a spinal needle (25-27 gauge) and a single injection technique of a 1:1 ratio local anesthetic mixed with 10% dextrose solution. Between 2.5-5 mg of hyperbaric anesthetic was injected intrathecally in the sitting position and the patient remained upright for 3-10 minutes. This technique of saddle block anesthesia provides analgesia for approximately 1-3 hours.

RESULTS

In the study, 859 saddle block anesthesia patients were identified, with a mean age of 44.6 years and American Society of Anesthesia score of 1.9; 609 (70.9%) were male. Surgical indications included lesion removal (27.1%), anal fistula (25.8%), hemorrhoidectomy (24.7%), pilonidal disease (6.3%), anal fissure (5.8%), and a combination of prior (10.2%). Prone jackknife positioning was used in 91.6% of procedures. Saddle block anesthesia most often was performed with bupivacaine (48.9%) or ropivacaine (41.7%). The median procedural saddle block anesthesia time was 11 minutes, surgery time was 17 minutes, anesthesia time was 42 minutes, and recovery time was 91 minutes. Patients spent a median of 3 hours and 53 minutes in the facility. Adverse events included urinary retention (1.9%), conversion to general anesthesia (1.8%), spinal headache (1.5%), hemodynamic instability (0.9%), and injection site reaction (0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Demonstrated using the largest known cohort of anorectal patients with saddle block anesthesia, saddle block anesthesia provides an effective method of analgesia to avoid general anesthesia with a low rate of adverse events.

Local Perianal Anesthetic Infiltration Is Safe and Effective for Anorectal Surgery

Background: General or regional anesthesia is predominantly used for anorectal surgery, however in the recent years more attention was drawn in the use of local anesthesia for anorectal surgery. In this study we present the technique and results of the use of local perianal anesthetic infiltration for minor anorectal operations. Methods: In this cohort study patients undergoing surgery for hemorrhoids, anal fissures and low anal fistulas were included. Posterior perineal block was induced with a mixture containing 0.125% bupivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine. All patients were followed up at 30 days either by a post-operative visit or a telephone call and all post-operative complications over the post-operative 30-day period were registered. Results: One thousand and twenty-six consecutive patients were included in our study. For all patients' intraoperative analgesia was achieved after performing perianal anesthetic infiltration and no additional support from the anesthesia team was necessary in any of case. Complications were observed in 14 (1.4%). Urinary retention occurred in 5 (0.5%) cases. Six cases of bleeding occurred after hemorrhoidectomy (0.6%) and 1 (0.1%) after lateral internal sphincterotomy. Perianal abscess developed for two patients (0.2%). Conclusions: Local anesthesia using posterior perineal block technique is safe and effective for intraoperative analgesia in anorectal surgery, saving a substantial operation cost by avoiding the involvement of an anesthesia team and resulting in minimal incidence of urinary retention and other complications.

Ultrasound-Guided Pudendal Nerve Block Combined with Propofol Deep Sedation versus Spinal Anesthesia for Hemorrhoidectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study

Background and Objectives. Several anesthesia techniques were applied to hemorrhoidectomy, but postoperative pain and urinary retention were still two unsolved problems. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the effect of ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block (PNB) combined with deep sedation compared to spinal anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. Methods. One hundred and twenty patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy were randomized to receive PNB combined with deep sedation using propofol (Group PNB, n = 60) or spinal anesthesia (Group SA, n = 60). Pain intensity was assessed using the visual analogue scale (0: no pain to 10: worst possible pain). The primary outcome was pain scores recorded at rest at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 h and on walking at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were analgesic consumption, side effects, and patient satisfaction after surgery. Results. Ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB combined with deep sedation using propofol could successfully be applied to Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. Postoperative pain intensity was significantly lower in Group PNB compared to Group SA at rest at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 h (p < 0.001) and during mobilization at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h (p < 0.001) postoperatively. Sufentanil consumption in Group PNB was significantly lower than that in Group SA, during 0-24 h (p < 0.001) and during 24-48 h (p < 0.001) postoperatively. Urinary retention was significantly lower in Group PNB compared to Group SA (6.9% vs 20%, p=0.034). The patients in Group PNB had higher satisfaction compared to Group SA (p < 0.001). Conclusions. Ultrasound-guided PNB combined with propofol sedation is an effective anesthesia technique for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy.

Botulinum Toxin Injection for Analgesic Effect after Hemorrhoidectomy: A Randomized Control Trial

Objectives:

Hemorrhoid is a common disease in surgical practice, but only a few numbers of patients need surgical treatment. The most common concern of patients is postoperative pain. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intersphincteric injection of botulinum toxin for post-hemorrhoidectomy pain relief.

Methods:

Overall, 90 patients were enrolled, and 44 were randomized into a botulinum toxin injection group. Preoperative gradings were grade III 37 patients and grade II 2 patients. Patients received an intersphincteric injection of 0.5 ml of a solution containing 30 units of botulinum toxin (BTX). The postoperative data were collected pain score in a visual analog score (VAS), an analgesic used, hospital stay, and complication.

Results:

The VAS was lower in the BTX group at 12 hours and 24 hours postoperative phase. VAS at 12 hours 4.435 ± 2.149 vs 6.232 ± 2.307 (p < 0.001), VAS at 24 hours 2.205 ± 2.079 vs 3.744 ± 2.361(p = 0.003). The BTX group has a shorter time in defection without pain than the control group (3 vs. two days, p = 0.007). There was no difference in immediate and delay complications between the two groups.

Conclusions:

Postoperative hemorrhoidectomy needs multimodalities for pain reduction. Botulinum toxin has some benefit in postoperative pain reduction.

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.

Perianal block with ropivacaine as a supplement to anaesthesia in proctological surgery: double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial (PERCEPT)

BACKGROUND

The benefit of a perianal block as an adjunct to general or regional anaesthesia is debated. This RCT aimed to compare pain at 24 h and up to 14 days after proctological surgery in patients with and without a perianal block.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and April 2019, patients were allocated to receive a perianal block with ropivacaine or placebo as an adjunct to anaesthesia. Patients, surgeons and assessors were blinded. The primary outcome was pain measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) after 24 h. Secondary outcomes were need for rescue analgesia, and pain after 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 h. The mean, rest and maximum NRS scores were measured for 14 days.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients were included, of whom 46 and 44 received general anaesthesia with or without ropivacaine respectively, and 23 and 25 received spinal anaesthesia with or without ropivacaine respectively (P = 0·858). The mean NRS score differed significantly at 24 h (mean(s.d.) 1·1(0·1) versus 2·3(0·2); P < 0·001), but not at 1 h (1·4(0·2) versus 2·2(0·3); P = 0·051). The NRS score was lower with use of ropivacaine at 2 h (1·0(0·2) versus 1·6(0·2); P = 0·045), 3 h (0·9(0·2) versus 1·5(0·2); P = 0·022), 6 h (1·1(0·2) versus 1·8(0·2); P = 0·042) and 12 h (1·2(0·2) versus 1·8(0·2); P = 0·034). The use of oral morphine equivalents was 10·2(1·4) and 16·6(2·5) mg with and without ropivacaine respectively (P = 0·028). The mean and maximum NRS scores within 14 days were lower when ropivacaine was used (95 per cent c.i. for difference 0·14 to 0·49 (P = 0·002) and 0·39 to 0·63 (P < 0·001) respectively). There was no injection-associated morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Perianal block as an adjunct to general or regional anaesthesia should be recommended for proctological surgery. It yields a reduction in pain, a reduced need for opioids, and a faster recovery with minimal risk of adverse events. Registration number: NCT03405922 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Topical Analgesia with Lidocaine Plus Diclofenac Decreases Pain in Benign Anorectal Surgery: Randomized, Double-blind, and Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a topical formulation containing lidocaine plus diclofenac (CLIFE1) compared to lidocaine (CLIFE2), to decrease pain in benign anorectal surgery (BARS) to date not evaluated. More than 50% of patients undergoing BARS, especially hemorrhoidectomy, suffer from moderate and severe postoperative pain. This remains an unresolved problem that could be addressed with the new CLIFE1 topical treatment.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized double-blind, active-controlled parallel-group superiority trial, was conducted in two Spanish hospitals. Patients undergoing BARS (hemorrhoids, anal fistula and anal fissure) were randomized at the end of surgery at a 1:1 ratio to receive first dose either CLIFE1 (n = 60) or CLIFE2 (n = 60) anorectal topical treatment, and after every 12 h for the first three postoperative days and once a day from the fourth to sixth. The primary outcome was average of pain decrease after topical treatment, measured with visual analogue scale (VAS) by the patients themselves, the evening in the surgery day and four times daily for the first three postoperative days.

RESULTS

The results of 120 patients included out of 150 selected undergoing BARS show a decrease in pain after CLIFE1 topical treatment (7.47 ± 13.09) greater than with CLIFE2 (4.38 ± 6.75), difference -3.21 95% CI (-5.75; -0.68), p = 0.008, decreasing significantly postoperative pain ( ≥ 9 mm, VAS) in 35% of patients undergoing benign anorectal surgery, compared to 18.33 % treated with lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

The CLIFE1 topical treatment shows better analgesic efficacy than CLIFE2 in BARS.

Perianal Block: Is It as Good as Spinal Anesthesia for Closed Hemorrhoidectomies?

Background and Aims:

This study compared if perianal block using ropivacaine and dexmedetomidine was as good as spinal anesthesia (SA) using bupivacaine (heavy) for closed hemorrhoidectomies.

Methods:

A prospective randomized study was conducted in sixty patients who underwent closed hemorrhoidectomy. Thirty patients of Group A received SA. Thirty patients in Group B received local perianal block. Patients were evaluated for onset of the block, total pain-free period, and time to ambulation. Patient satisfaction in terms of pain during injection and satisfaction with the anesthesia technique was assessed after 2-week telephonically. Data were statistically analyzed using unpaired t-test for the continuous variables and Fischer's exact test for categorical variables.

Results:

Onset of anesthesia was significantly earlier in Group B, mean (standard deviation [SD]) value being 3.17 (1.28) min as compared to Group A, 6.24 (4.28) min (P = 0.0004). Total pain-free period (mean [SD]) in minute was longer in Group B, 287 (120) min as compared to Group A, 128 (38) min. Time to ambulation was significantly earlier in Group B, 22.83 (29.32) min as compared to Group A 302 (92.41) min. Pain during injection between the two groups was comparable. However, more patients in Group B (60%) were satisfied with the anesthesia technique as compared to Group A (27.5%).

Conclusion:

Perianal block for hemorrhoidectomy with ropivacaine 0.2% using dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant is an effective and reliable technique which is as effective as SA. It provides prolonged postoperative analgesia and early ambulation.

Ambulatory haemorrhoidal surgery: systematic literature review and qualitative analysis

PURPOSE

The aims of this study are to review the advantages and drawbacks of the ambulatory management of patients scheduled for haemorrhoidal surgery and to highlight the reasons for unplanned hospital admission and suggest preventive strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 1999 to January 2013 using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Manuscripts were specifically analysed for failure and side effects of haemorrhoidal surgery in ambulatory settings.

RESULTS

Fifty relevant studies (6082 patients) were retrieved from the literature review. The rate of ambulatory management failure ranged between 0 and 61%. The main reasons for failure were urinary retention, postoperative haemorrhage and unsatisfactory pain control. Spinal anaesthesia was associated with the highest rates of urinary retention. Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation has less frequent side effects susceptible to impair ambulatory management than haemorrhoidectomy and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. However, the fact that haemorrhoidopexy is less painful than haemorrhoidectomy may allow ambulatory management.

CONCLUSION

Day-case haemorrhoidal surgery can be performed whatever the surgical procedure. Postoperative pain deserves special prevention measures after haemorrhoidectomy, especially by using perineal block or infiltrations. Urinary retention is a common issue that can be responsible for failure; it requires a preventive strategy including short duration spinal anaesthesia. Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation is easy to perform in outpatients but deserves more complete evaluation in this setting.

The effect of local injections of bupivacaine plus ketamine, bupivacaine alone, and placebo on reducing postoperative anal fistula pain: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effects of different local anesthetic solutions on postoperative pain of anal surgery in adult patients.

METHOD

In this randomized double-blind prospective clinical trial, 60 adult patients (18 to 60 years old) with physical status class I and class II that had been brought to a university hospital operating room for fistula anal surgery with spinal anesthesia were selected. Patients were randomly divided into 4 equal groups according to table of random numbers (created by Random Allocation Software 1). Group 1 received 3 mL of normal saline, group 2, 1 mL of normal saline plus 2 mL of bupivacaine 0.5%, group 3, 1 mL of ketamine plus 2 mL of bupivacaine 0.5%, and group 4, no infiltration. Intensity of pain in patients was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) at 0 (transfer to ward), 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Time interval to administration of drugs and overall dose of drugs were measured in 4 groups.

RESULTS

Mean level of pain was the lowest in group 3 at all occasions with a significant difference, followed by groups 2, 4, and lastly 1 (P < 0.001). Furthermore, groups 2 and 3 compared to groups 1 and 4 had the least overall dose of analgesics and requested them the latest, with a significant difference (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Local anesthesia (1 mL of ketamine plus 2 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% or 1 mL of normal saline plus 2 mL of bupivacaine 0.5%) combined with spinal anesthesia reduces postoperative pain and leads to greater comfort in recovering patients.

[Hemorrhoidal surgery: new trends for day-case surgery]

Despite recommendations and encouragements, day-case hemorrhoidal surgery is incompletely developed. The incidence of postoperative pain, urinary retention and the risk of bleeding vary according to the surgical procedure but they are considered as the main impediments to ambulatory management. Consequently, besides the use of good clinical practice concerning ambulatory surgery, hemorrhoidal surgery requires an effective control of postoperative pain based on the use of pudendal block, an adaptation of the anesthetic technique and a careful postoperative follow-up.

How to do open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia and its comparison with spinal anesthesia

Day care open hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia (LA) may be most effective approach to hemorrhoidectomy. We describe a technique for a surgeon to administer local anesthesia himself for open hemorrhoidectomy and also compare outcome and clinical perspectives of hemorrhoidectomy under Local anesthesia with that after open hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia (SA).

TECHNIQUE

50 patients with III/IV degree hemorrhoids and grade II hemorrhoid not responding to conservative treatment were randomized to LA (5 grade II, 15 grade III and 5 grade IV) and SA (7 grade II, 14 grade III and 4 grade IV). Assessment was carried out afterwards in terms of pain scores (using Numerical Rating Scale, NRS at 30 mins, 90 mins, 6 h and 24 h) and post operative analgesia. Secondary outcomes were complications like urinary retention, post operative headache and surgical complications, and overall stay. Median pain scores were comparable in both the treatment groups during the whole study period except at 6 h where significantly higher (p < 0.05) pain scores were noted in spinal anesthesia group. Complications were much higher in Spinal anesthesia [Hypotension (4patients); post operative headache (6patients); urinary retention (9patients)]. Mean time at first bladder evacuation was significantly higher in patients operated under spinal anesthesia [8 h (SA) Vs 1.5 h (LA)]. Average hospital stay was significantly longer in patients operated under spinal anesthesia (p value < 0.001). Local anesthesia is an alternative mode of anesthesia that surgeon can safely carry out by their own. In our study hemorrhoidectomy under local anesthesia was associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower pain scores and lower post operative complications which supports the routine use of local anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy.

[Study of accessibility costs and satisfaction comparing a MAS unit incorporated in a Hospital versus a theoretical model in a peripheral centre]

INTRODUCTION

Geographical barriers are a determining factor in the accessibility of Hospital health care, and structural changes to improve geographic accessibility must be introduced. The purpose of this study is to compare accessibility costs and the level of satisfaction obtained in an adapted Specialist Centre with a peripheral MAS (Major Ambulatory Surgery) Unit, with an already existing one incorporated into the Virgen de la Luz Hospital (Cuenca, Spain) to obtain quality health care in the sub-population nearest the peripheral Centre.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A study was made on a comparison of the costs attributable to accessibility of 133 patients operated on due to hernia disorders in 2008 in the Cuenca Hospital of Castille-La Mancha Health Service (SESCAM), and who lived in its health area. These were compared using a simulation study for an ambulatory surgical Centre, functionally operational, but with no Major Ambulatory Surgery activity nearest to this patient population. The opinions of the patients and the increased cost-effectiveness for each alternative proposal were studied.

RESULTS

The accessibility cost, taking into account the theoretical use of the Ambulatory Centre would be 208,028.09 € and the real costs of the Hospital were 209,088.94 €, with a minimum difference between the two of 1,060.85 €, assuming similar clinical results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are no significant differences in accessibility costs by using an ambulatory surgery Centre compared to the Hospital, a special assessment of the use of the former is important, expressed in the satisfaction of the patients.

Current world literature

This bibliography is compiled by clinicians from the journals listed at the end of this publication. It is based on literature entered into our database between 1 February 2008 and 31 January 2009 (articles are generally added to the database about two and a half months after publication). In addition, the bibliography contains every paper annotated by reviewers; these references were obtained from a variety of bibliographic databases and published between the beginning of the review period and the time of going to press. The bibliography has been grouped into topics that relate to the reviews in this issue.

Randomized clinical trial of stapled haemorrhoidopexy performed under local perianal block versus general anaesthesia

Background

The aim was to assess the feasibility of performing stapled haemorrhoidopexy under local anaesthesia.

Methods

Fifty-eight patients with haemorrhoid prolapse were randomized to receive local or general anaesthesia. The perianal block was applied immediately peripheral to the external sphincter. Submucosal block was added after applying the purse-string suture. Patients reported average and peak pain daily for 14 days using a visual analogue scale (VAS). They also completed anal symptom questionnaires before the operation and at follow-up. The surgeon assessed the restoration of the anal anatomy 3–6 months after surgery.

Results

The anal block was sufficient in all patients. The mean accumulated VAS score for average pain was 23·1 in the general anaesthesia group and 29·4 in the local anaesthesia group (P = 0·376); mean peak pain scores were 42·1 and 47·9 respectively (P = 0·537). Mean change in symptom load was also similar between the groups, with score differences of 7·0 in the general anaesthesia group and 6·1 in the local anaesthesia group. No patient had a recurrence of prolapse.

Conclusion

Perianal local block is easy to apply with a high degree of acceptability among patients. Postoperative pain, restoration of anatomy and symptom resolution were similar to that of stapled haemorrhoidopexy performed under general anaesthesia. Registration number: ISRCTN19930199 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).