Pudendal nerve block versus local anesthesia for harmonic scalpel hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized study

Comparison of Pudendal Nerve Block and Spinal Anesthesia in Proctological Surgeries: Efficacy, Safety, and Patient Outcomes

Background and Objectives: The selection of an appropriate anesthesia method is a critical factor in the surgical treatment of proctological diseases, significantly impacting patient outcomes and comfort. Pudendal nerve block (PNB) and spinal anesthesia (SA) are commonly employed in these surgeries, yet the optimal choice between the two remains debated. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of PNB and SA in patients undergoing surgical treatment for various proctological conditions, with a focus on postoperative pain management, functional outcomes, and complication rates. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 590 patients who underwent proctological surgery under either PNB (n = 435) or SA (n = 155). Pain levels were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), while functional outcomes were measured using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes between the two groups. Results: Patients in the PNB group reported significantly lower postoperative VAS scores compared to those in the SA group, particularly in hemorrhoidectomy and laser hemorrhoidoplasty procedures. The PNB group also demonstrated superior functional outcomes, with lower postoperative WHODAS 2.0 scores and a reduced incidence of urinary retention compared to the SA group. Furthermore, the duration of surgery and hospital stay were significantly shorter for patients in the PNB group. Conclusions: The findings suggest that PNB may offer advantages over SA in proctological surgeries, particularly in terms of pain management, functional recovery, and reduced complication rates. PNB should be considered a viable alternative to SA, particularly in cases where rapid recovery and minimizing complications are priorities. Exceptions to this include specific proctological surgeries, such as those for malignant tumors in the region, complex anal fistulas, proctological conditions arising from inflammatory bowel diseases, and patients on immunosuppressive therapy. Further research is needed to confirm these results and optimize anesthesia selection in this context.

The efficacy of peripheral nerve block on postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort in males: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of peripheral nerve block (PNB) in preventing postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD).

METHODS

Up to July 1, 2022, the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched, and all articles that met the PICOS (Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study design) criteria were enrolled. The included trials were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Patients in the block group received bilateral PNB, while those in the non-block group did not need any additional procedure or simply achieved "sham block". CRBD was quantified using the visual analog scale (VAS) score, which was questioned and recorded at 0-1 h, 1-2 h, 4-8 h, 8-12 h and 12-24 h intervals. The incidences of CRBD, moderate to severe CRBD and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were meta-analysed.

RESULTS

Six trials with a total of 544 patients were considered. First, the block group had a lower incidence of CRBD than the non-block group at 0-1 h (OR 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.08; P < 0.0001), 1-2 h (OR 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.26; P < 0.00001), 4-8 h (OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.58; P < 0.0008) and 8-12 h (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.87; P = 0.01). Second, the block group showed a lower incidence of moderate to severe CRBD than the non-block group at 0-1 h, 1-2 h and 4-8 h, and the ORs were 0.12 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49; P = 0.003), 0.17 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.37; P < 0.00001) and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.55; P = 0.0002),respectively. Finally, the block group was significantly associated with a decreased incidence of PONV (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.39; P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that PNB markedly reduced the incidence and severity of early postoperative CRBD and decreased the occurrence of PONV.

Pudendal Nerve Block for Posthemorrhoidectomy Pain: A Prospective, Single-Blinded Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is common in hemorrhoidectomy patients. Local anesthetic given either as an intraoperative pudendal nerve block or as a local wound infiltration may help alleviate postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether the addition of an intraoperative pudendal nerve block to a perianal local wound infiltration and standardized analgesia regimen was superior to a perianal local wound infiltration and standardized analgesia regimen alone in reducing early postoperative pain following hemorrhoidectomy. The secondary objective was to measure differences between treatment groups in perceived perianal numbness, oral opioid requirements, and adverse events.

DESIGN

This study was a prospective, single-blinded randomized controlled trial approved by the Eastern Health Human Research and Ethics Committee in Melbourne, Australia (registration number: E09/2014).

SETTINGS

Patients were recruited across 3 Australian hospitals.

PATIENTS

Eighty patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids requiring hemorrhoidectomy in colorectal surgical outpatient clinics were successfully recruited and enrolled in the study, with 1 patient later dropping out.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to either the pudendal nerve block group or a control group. The pudendal nerve block group received 5 mL bupivacaine 0.5% with adrenaline 1:200,000 to both pudendal nerve trunks bilaterally. Both groups received 10 mL of the same local anesthetic injected into the post-hemorrhoidectomy wound bed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analogue scales were used to record patient pain scores. Dichotomous (yes/no) answers were recorded for secondary objectives.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in postoperative pain between groups at 4 hours, 8 hours, 12 hours, or 24 hours. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to perceived perianal numbness, oral opioid usage or adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

The authors recognize that without a nerve stimulator, an argument can be made that the pudendal nerve block was not actually achieved.

CONCLUSION

Pudendal nerve block does not appear to demonstrate additional benefit in post-hemorrhoidectomy pain reduction beyond local anesthetic to the wound. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B780.

BLOQUEO DEL NERVIO PUDENDO PARA EL DOLOR POSHEMORROIDECTOMA ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO, ALEATORIO, CONTROLADO, CIEGO

ANTECEDENTES:El dolor posoperatorio es común en pacientes luego de una hemorroidectomía. La administración de anestésico local como bloqueo del nervio pudendo intraoperatorio o infiltración local de la herida puede ayudar a aliviar el dolor posoperatorio.OBJETIVOS:Determinar si agregar un bloqueo intraoperatorio del nervio pudendo a una infiltración local perianal de la herida y un régimen de analgesia estandarizado fue superior a una infiltración local perianal de la herida más un régimen de analgesia estandarizado para reducir el dolor posoperatorio precoz después de una hemorroidectomía. Los objetivos secundarios incluyeron sensación de adormecimiento perianal, requerimientos de opioides orales y eventos adversos informados.DISEÑO:Este estudio fue un ensayo controlado aleatorio, prospectivo, ciego, aprobado por el Comité de Ética e Investigación en Humanos de Eastern Health en Melbourne, Australia (número de registro: E09 / 2014).ESCENARIO:Los pacientes fueron reclutados en tres hospitales australianos.PACIENTES:Ochenta pacientes se inscribieron con éxito en el estudio, y más tarde un paciente abandonó.INTERVENCIÓN:Los pacientes fueron asignados al azar al grupo de bloqueo del nervio pudendo o al grupo control. El grupo de bloqueo del nervio pudendo recibió 5 ml de bupivacaína al 0,5% con adrenalina 1: 200.000 en ambos troncos del nervio pudendo bilateralmente. Ambos grupos recibieron 10 ml del mismo anestésico local inyectado en el lecho de la herida posterior a la hemorroidectomía.PRINCIPALES VARIABLES ANALIZADAS:Se utilizaron escalas analógicas visuales para registrar las puntuaciones de dolor del paciente. Se registraron respuestas dicotómicas (sí / no) para los objetivos secundarios.RESULTADOS:No hubo diferencias significativas en el dolor posoperatorio entre los grupos a las 4, 8, 12 o 24 horas. Además, no hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos con respecto al adromecimiento perianal percibido, el uso de opioides orales o los eventos adversos.LIMITACIONES:Sin el uso de un estimulador nervioso, se puede argumentar que el bloqueo del nervio pudendo no se logró realmente.CONCLUSIÓNES:El bloqueo del nervio pudendo no parece demostrar un beneficio adicional en la reducción del dolor posterior a la hemorroidectomía más allá del anestésico local en la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B780.

The Role of Pudendal Nerve Block in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery is associated with significant pain often requiring opioid and non-opioid analgesics. Pudendal nerve blocks (PNBs) can be administered with the aim to reduce pain and improve patient satisfaction. However, there are no current accepted guidelines for the use of PNB in colorectal surgery.

METHOD

We evaluated the available literature on the role of PNB in colorectal surgery to determine which technique and anesthetic agent may provide optimal pain relief and safety. Studies from January 1970 to December 2019 assessing PNB in colorectal surgery were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Indication for PNB, technique, anesthetic agent, postoperative pain outcomes, patient satisfaction and complications were extracted.

RESULTS

We initially identified 339 studies of which 17 (nine randomized controlled trials, three cohort studies, one case-control study and four reviews) specifically met the inclusion criteria. The most common indication found for PNB is hemorrhoidectomy using either bupivacaine or lidocaine. The anatomical landmark and neurostimulation are the most favorable techniques being applied. The majority of studies reported better pain scores, less analgesia requirement and higher patient satisfaction when performing a bilateral PNB, with no major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence, though limited, supports the use of bilateral PNBs in colorectal surgical procedures in particular hemorrhoidectomies. PNBs can be safe and effective in improving patient outcomes particularly when using bupivacaine or lidocaine with either the anatomical landmark or neurostimulation technique.

Pudendal Nerve Block in Hemorrhoid Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain represents an important issue in traditional hemorrhoidectomy. Optimal pain control is mandatory, especially in a surgical day care setting.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the use of pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched up to December 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials evaluating the pudendal nerve block effect in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Hemorrhoidectomy under general or spinal anesthesia with or without pudendal nerve block was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Opioid consumption, pain on the visual analogue scale, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate were the main outcomes of interest and were plotted by using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 749 articles, of which 14 were deemed eligible. A total of 1214 patients were included, of whom 565 received the pudendal nerve block. After hemorrhoidectomy, patients in the pudendal nerve block group received opioids less frequently (relative risk, 0.364; 95% CI, 0.292-0.454, p < 0.001) and in a lower cumulative dose (standardized mean difference, -0.935; 95% CI, -1.280 to -0.591, p < 0.001). Moreover, these patients experienced less pain at 24 hours (standardized mean difference, -1.862; 95% CI, -2.495 to -1.228, p < 0.001), had a shorter length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference, -0.742; 95% CI, -1.145 to -0.338, p < 0.001), and had a lower readmission rate (relative risk, 0.239; 95% CI, 0.062-0.916, p = 0.037). Sensitivity analysis excluded the occurrence of publication bias on the primary end point, and the overall evidence quality was judged "high."

LIMITATIONS

Occurrence of publication bias among some secondary end points and heterogeneity are the main limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis show significant advantages of pudendal nerve block use. A reduction in opioid consumption, postoperative pain, complications, and length of stay can be demonstrated. Despite the limitations, pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy should be considered.

Ultrasound-Guided Pudendal Nerve Block in Patients Undergoing Open Hemorrhoidectomy: A Post-Hoc Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Pudendal nerve block (PNB) has been demonstrated to reduce postoperative pain and re-admission rates after open hemorrhoidectomy and may reduce costs but, to date, no study has reported data on this aspect. The aim of our study was to perform a cost analysis on PNB use in in- and outpatients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy.

Methods

From January 2018 to December 2019, patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy were included and randomized to undergo spinal anesthesia either with or without the PNB. Clinical data, direct and indirect costs for in- and outpatients, operating time and operating theatre occupancy were recorded. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) and TARMED reimbursement systems was performed.

Results

Patients who underwent PNB in addition to spinal anesthesia had significantly less pain and a shorter length of hospital stay after open hemorrhoidectomy. The cost analysis included all 49 patients, 23 of whom, in addition to spinal anesthesia, received a PNB. There were no significant differences in operating theatre occupancy (p=0.662), mean operative time (p=0.610) or time required for anesthesia (p=0.124). Direct costs were comparable (482±386 vs 613±543 EUR, p=0.108), while indirect costs were significantly lower in the PNB group (2606±816 vs 2769±1506 EUR, p=0.005). We estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of −243 ± 881 EUR/pain unit on the VAS.

Conclusion

Despite limitations, the ultrasound-guided PNB seems to reduce costs in patient undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia. It was shown to be clinically beneficial and cost-effective, and therefore recommendable in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy.

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.

Non-Doppler hemorrhoidal artery ligation and hemorrhoidopexy combined with pudendal nerve block for the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In this study, we proposed a combined outpatient treatment modality for hemorrhoidal disease.

METHODS

This study was a prospective non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT). The experimental group included the dearterialization and hemorrhoidopexy under pudendal nerve block, whereas the comparator consisted of the standard Doppler guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation and hemorrhoidopexy, under spinal anesthesia. As primary hypothesis, we considered the non-inferiority of the proposed modality in terms of the presenting symptom remission rate (non-inferiority margin: 10%). Randomization was based on a 1:1 ratio. Blinding was confined to the patient and the investigator.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 patients were enrolled. The primary hypothesis of this RCT (96.7% vs 73.3%) was validated. The experimental group was associated with a lower operation duration and an expedited onset of mobilization and feeding. Moreover, a favorable profile regarding short-term morbidity and analgesia was identified. The control group displayed a higher pile recurrence rate and a suboptimal patient satisfaction. A significant effect of the treatment modality in most of the SF-36 components was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed treatment modality was associated with favorable short and long-term outcomes. Due to specific limitations, further RCTs, with a larger sample size, are required. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03298997.

Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

In this double-blind randomized trial, we aimed to compare the postoperative pain, complications, and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia with or without the pudendal nerve block.

METHODS

Patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia were randomized to undergo a pudendal nerve block or no intervention. Postoperative pain on the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h; opioid administration; and length of hospital stay were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 49 patients were included and 23 randomized in the treatment arm. No differences in terms of age, gender, and preoperative risk factors were noted between groups. The pain on the VAS at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h was 2.8 vs. 4.6 (p = 0.046), 3.4 vs. 4.7 (p = 0.697), 1.4 vs. 3.1 (p = 0.016), and 1.0 vs. 2.1 (p = 0.288) in the treatment and control groups respectively. No differences in opioids use or complications were noted. Length of hospital stay was 1.2 vs. 1.8 days respectively (p = 0.046). No complications directly associated to the pudendal nerve block were observed. Multivariate analysis revealed that the pudendal nerve block was an independent factor reducing the postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia showed a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. The proposed technique appeared to be safe and feasible and may be recommendable in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04251884.

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).

Randomized clinical study on the analgesic effect of local infiltration versus spinal block for hemorrhoidectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:

Postoperative analgesia and early recovery are important for hospital discharge. The primary objective of this study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of perianal infiltration and subarachnoid anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. The secondary objective was to compare time to discharge, adverse effects and complications.

DESIGN AND SETTING:

Randomized, prospective and comparative study at Dr. Mário Gatti Hospital.

METHODS:

Forty patients aged 18-60, in American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status category 1 or 2, were included. The local group (LG) received local infiltration (0.75% ropivacaine) under general anesthesia; the spinal group (SG) received subarachnoid block (2 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine). Analgesic supplementation consisted of fentanyl for LG and lidocaine for SG. Postoperative pain intensity, sphincter relaxation, lower-limb strength, time to discharge, analgesic dose over one week and adverse effects were assessed.

RESULTS:

Eleven LG patients (52.4%) required supplementation, but no SG patients. Pain intensity was higher for LG up to 120 min, but there were no differences at 150 or 180 min. There were no differences in the need for paracetamol or tramadol. Times to first analgesic supplementation and hospital discharge were longer for SG. The adverse effects were nausea, dizziness and urinary retention.

CONCLUSIONS:

Pain intensity was higher in LG than in SG over the first 2 h, but without differences after 150 and 180 min. Time to first supplementation was shorter in LG. There were no differences in doses of paracetamol and tramadol, or in adverse effects.

REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02839538.

Systemic Metronidazole May Not Reduce Posthemorrhoidectomy Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhoidectomy is associated with significant postoperative pain. Oral metronidazole has been recommended as an adjunct to improve posthemorrhoidectomy analgesia.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of oral metronidazole on patient-reported pain following hemorrhoidectomy.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials examining adults who underwent surgical hemorrhoidectomy were included. Participants in an active intervention group received oral metronidazole postoperatively, and those in a control group received placebo or usual care. Postoperative pain was assessed for at least 3 days postoperatively.

INTERVENTION

A random-effects model was used.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain during the first 2 postoperative weeks, measured on a visual analogue scale. The secondary outcome was time to return to normal activities.

RESULTS

Patients who received oral metronidazole had significantly lower reported pain scores on postoperative day 1 (standardized mean difference, -0.87 ± 0.44; 95% CI, -1.73 to -0.015; p = 0.046; n = 4) and day 4 (standardized mean difference, -1.43 ± 0.71; 95% CI, -2.83 to -0.037; p = 0.044; n = 3). Metronidazole use was associated with a significantly shorter time to return to normal activities (standardized mean difference, -0.76 ± 0.34; 95% CI, -1.43 to -0.088, p = 0.027). The improvements disappeared in a sensitivity analysis excluding the largest trial with a high risk of bias, and no significance was observed during the remaining postoperative days.

LIMITATIONS

The meta-analysis was limited by lack of double blinding, absence of a placebo, and unclear or high risk of bias in a proportion of the included trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a favorable adverse effect profile supports consideration of oral metronidazole to reduce posthemorrhoidectomy pain, pooled analysis reveals inconsistent results with no pain reduction on most postoperative days. The current recommendation for routine prescription of oral metronidazole should be reevaluated in the absence of additional well-designed trials.

[Pain management after hemorrhoidectomy. Patient-controlled analgesia vs conventional pain therapy]

PURPOSE

The aim of this randomized non-blinded study was to assess the pain management after hemorrhoidectomy using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study following Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy 38 patients were administered either standard pain management with oral non-steroidal analgesics (control n = 18) or additional PCA with piritramid intravenously by infusion pump within the first 24 h (PCA n = 19).

RESULTS

The pain score within the first 24 h after surgery was significantly lower in patients with PCA compared to control patients (maximum pain within 12 h postoperatively: mean PCA 2.6 versus control 5.7). During the first 24 h postoperatively, patients with PCA were significantly more satisfied with the pain management than the control patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain after hemorrhoidectomy can be reduced within the first 24 h using PCA. Patients are significantly more satisfied with PCA than with standard medication.