Randomized clinical trial of ropivacaine wound infusion following laparoscopic colorectal surgery

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Postoperative analgesic efficacy of modified continuous transversus abdominis plane block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal opioid-sparing analgesic regimen following laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) remains uncertain. We sought to determine the efficacy of low-dose bupivacaine infusion via surgeon-inserted modified continuous transversus abdominis plane (mcTAP) catheters after LCS.

METHODS

A parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomized single-centre trial was conducted between April 2017 and February 2018. Block-of-four randomization and allocation concealment by sequentially-numbered, opaque sealed envelopes were used. Patients, surgeons and assessors were blinded. Fifty-two patients were randomized to receive either 0.2% bupivacaine or saline through mcTAP catheters. A 5 ml bolus followed by a 72 h infusion at 2 ml/h was started, with patient-controlled fentanyl analgesia and oral paracetamol given on demand. Primary outcomes were fentanyl consumptions in the first 24 h, second 24 h, and third 24 h following surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain numeric rating scores, recovery outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients in the bupivacaine group and 26 in the control group were analysed. Patients in the bupivacaine group required significantly less fentanyl overall (106.1 vs 484.5 mcg, p < 0.001) and at all time points (first 24 h: 61.0 vs 324.3 mcg, p < 0.001; second 24 h: 36.3 vs 119.0 mcg, p = 0.033; third 24 h: 8.8 vs 41.2, p = 0.030) when compared to placebo. Significantly lower pain scores at rest at 6 h (2.32 vs 4.0, p = 0.002), and 12 h (1.80 vs 3.08, p = 0.011) and on coughing at 6 h (4.56 vs 5.84, p = 0.019), 12 h (3.76 vs 4.96, p = 0.009), and 24 h (3.44 vs 4.24, p = 0.049) as well as significantly lower opioid-related complications such as nausea or vomiting (9 (36%) vs 1 (4%), p = 0.005) were observed in the bupivacaine group. There were no major block-related complications, and recovery outcomes were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

McTAP block reduces postoperative fentanyl consumption and pain scores after LCS, highlighting its role as a safe and useful opioid-sparing analgesia.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

TCTR20150831001 (Thai Clinical Trials Registry). Full trial protocol can be assessed at https://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/ .

Ropivacaine preperitoneal wound infusion for pain relief and prevention of incisional hyperalgesia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized, triple-arm, double-blind controlled evaluation vs intravenous lidocaine infusion, the CATCH study

AIM

The abdominal incision for specimen extraction could trigger postoperative pain after laparoscopic colorectal resections (LCRs). Continuous wound infusion (CWI) of ropivacaine may be a valuable option for postoperative analgesia. This study was undertaken to evaluate the potential benefits of ropivacaine CWI on pain relief, metabolic stress reaction, prevention of wound hyperalgesia and residual incisional pain after LCR. A subgroup with intravenous lidocaine infusion (IVL) was added to discriminate between the peripheral and systemic effects of local anaesthetic infusions.

METHOD

Patients were randomly allocated to three subgroups: CWI (0.2% ropivacaine 10 ml/h for 48 h); IVL (lidocaine 1.5% at 4 ml/h for 48 h); control group.

RESULTS

In all, 95 patients were randomized (86 patients analysed). Postoperative pain intensity did not differ significantly between groups. Within the first 24 h after surgery, morphine requirement was significantly lower in the CWI group compared with the IVL group, but there was no significant difference compared with the control group (P = 0.02 and P = 0.15, respectively). The area of hyperalgesia did not differ significantly between subgroups, nor did the hyperalgesia ratio which was 1.2 cm (0.0-6.7) vs 1.9 cm (0.4-4.0) vs 2.0 cm (0.5-7.0) in the CWI, IVL and control groups respectively (P = 0.35). The number of patients reporting residual incisional pain after 3 months (3/26 vs 4/23 vs 4/23 in the CWI, IVL and control groups respectively) did not differ significantly between the groups, nor did their metabolic stress reactions.

CONCLUSION

Ropivacaine CWI at the site of the abdominal incision did not provide any significant benefit either on analgesia or on the prevention of wound hyperalgesia after LCR.

A Meta-Analysis: Postoperative Pain Management in Colorectal Surgical Patients and the Effects on Length of Stay in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Setting

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) aims to minimize the length of a negative physiological response to surgical intervention. There are a number of aspects involved in ERAS protocols, one of which is postoperative pain relief. This meta-analysis investigates the current evidence for postoperative pain relief and its effect on patient pain and the length of stay after colorectal surgery.

METHOD/RESULTS

Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant studies between January 1966 and February 2016. All randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative pain management strategies in an ERAS setting with the length of stay as an outcome measure were selected. In addition to the length of stay, other outcomes analyzed were pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively, nausea, vomiting, and the time to the first bowel motion.

RESULTS

There was a decrease in vomiting in the ERAS group compared with the control groups (relative risk=0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27). Mean differences in the length of stay (P=0.879), pain visual analogue scales (P=0.120), the time to the first bowel motion in hours (P=0.371), and nausea (P=0.083) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In an ERAS setting with regard to a colorectal patient population, the choice of modality for postoperative pain relief does not impact the length of hospital stay, pain, the time to the first bowel motion, or nausea.

Analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine wound infusion after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Purpose

Local anesthetic wound infusion has been previously investigated in postoperative pain management. However, a limited number of studies have evaluated its use in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. This study aims to evaluate whether ropivacaine wound infusion is effective for postoperative pain management after laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

This prospective study included 184 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer between July 2012 and June 2013. The patients were grouped as the combined group (intravenous patient-controlled analgesia [IV-PCA] plus continuous wound infusion with ropivacaine, n = 92) and the PCA group (IV-PCA only, n = 92). Efficacy and safety were assessed in terms of numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, opioid consumption, postoperative recovery, and complications.

Results

The total quantity of PCA fentanyl was significantly less in the combined group than in the PCA group (P < 0.001). The NRS score of the combined group was not higher than in the PCA group, despite less opioid consumption. There were no differences between groups for postoperative recovery and most complications, including wound complications. However, the rate of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the combined group (P = 0.022).

Conclusion

Ropivacaine wound infusion significantly reduced postoperative opioid requirements and the rate of nausea/vomiting. This study showed clinical efficacy of ropivacaine wound infusion for postoperative pain control in colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Randomized trial of subfascial infusion of ropivacaine for early recovery in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

Background

There is a need for investigating the analgesic method as part of early recovery after surgery tailored for laparoscopic colorectal cancer (LCRC) surgery. In this randomized trial, we aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of an inverse ‘v’ shaped bilateral, subfascial ropivacaine continuous infusion in LCRC surgery.

Methods

Forty two patients undergoing elective LCRC surgery were randomly allocated to one of two groups to receive either 0.5% ropivacaine continuous infusion at the subfascial plane (n = 20, R group) or fentanyl intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IV PCA) (n = 22, F group) for postoperative 72 hours. The primary endpoint was the visual analogue scores (VAS) when coughing at postoperative 24 hours. Secondary end points were the VAS at 1, 6, 48, and 72 hours, time to first flatus, time to first rescue meperidine requirement, rescue meperidine consumption, length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation, hypotension, dizziness, headache, and wound complications.

Results

The VAS at rest and when coughing were similar between the groups throughout the study. The time to first gas passage and time to first rescue meperidine at ward were significantly shorter in the R group compared to the F group (P = 0.010). Rescue meperidine was administered less in the R group; however, without statistical significance. Other study parameters were not different between the groups.

Conclusions

Ropivacaine continuous infusion with an inverse ‘v ’ shaped bilateral, subfascial catheter placement showed significantly enhanced bowel recovery and analgesic efficacy was not different from IV PCA in LCRC surgery.

Protocol for a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of variation in practice in perioperative analgesic strategies in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery: the LapCoGesic Study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery combined with enhanced recovery programmes has become the gold standard in the elective management of colorectal disease. However, there is no consensus with regard to the optimal perioperative analgesic regime in this cohort of patients, with a number of options available, including thoracic epidural spinal analgesia, patient-controlled analgesia, subcutaneous and/or intraperitoneal local anaesthetics, local anaesthetic wound infiltration catheters and transversus abdominis plane blocks. This study aims to explore any differences in analgesic strategies employed across the North East of England and to assess whether any variation in practice has an impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All North East Colorectal units will be recruited for participation by the Northern Surgical Trainees Research Association (NoSTRA). Data will be collected over a consecutive 2-month period. Outcome measures will include postoperative pain score, postoperative opioid analgesic use and side effects, length of stay, 30-day complication rates, 30-day reoperative rates and 30-day readmission rates.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study has been granted by the National Research Ethics Service. The protocol will be disseminated through NoSTRA. Individual unit data will be presented at local meetings. Overall collective data will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant surgical meetings.

Transversus abdominis plane blockade in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Adequate postoperative analgesia is essential for recovery following colorectal surgery. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks have been found to be beneficial in improving pain following a variety of abdominal operations. The objective of this study was to determine if TAP blocks are useful in improving postoperative recovery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial, involving 226 consecutive patients having laparoscopic colorectal surgery, was performed by a university colorectal surgical department. Patients were randomized to either TAP blockade using ultrasound guidance, or control, with the primary outcome being postoperative pain, as measured by analgesic consumption. Secondary outcomes assessed were pain visual analogue score (VAS), respiratory function, time to return of gut function, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were followed up to trial completion (74 controls, 68 interventions). Patients were well matched with regard to demographics. No complications occurred as a result of the intervention of TAP blockade. There was no difference between groups with regards to analgesic consumption (161 mEq morphine control vs 175 mEq morphine TAP; p = 0.596). There was no difference between the two groups with regards to the secondary outcomes of daily VAS, respiratory outcome, time to return of gut function, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that TAP blockade appears to be a safe intervention but confers no specific advantage following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Postoperative analgesia with continuous wound infusion of local anaesthesia vs saline: a double-blind randomized, controlled trial in colorectal surgery

AIM

The aim of this prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial was to determine whether preperitoneal continuous wound infusion (CWI) of the local anaesthetic ropivacaine after either laparotomy or video-assisted laparoscopy for colorectal surgery would reduce patient consumption of morphine.

METHOD

Patients scheduled for colorectal surgery randomly received a 48-h preperitoneal CWI of either 0.38% ropivacaine or 0.9% saline at rates of 5 ml/h after laparotomy or 2 ml/h after laparoscopy. The primary end-point was total morphine consumption in surgery and afterwards through a patient-controlled analgesia device. Results in the laparotomy and laparoscopy subgroups were also compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients were included, 33 in the ropivacaine CWI group and 34 in the saline group. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] morphine consumption was lower in the ropivacaine group [23.5 mg (11.25-42.75)] than in the saline group [52 mg (24.5-64)] (P = 0.010). Morphine consumption was also lower in the laparotomy subgroup receiving ropivacaine [21.5 (15.6-34.7)] than in the saline group [52.5 (22.5-65) ml] (P = 0.041). Consumption was statistically similar in laparoscopy patients on ropivacaine or saline. No side effects were observed. Sixteen patients had a surgical wound infection (23.9%); 11 (16.4%) presented wound infection and five (7.5%) organ space infection. Forty-six catheter cultures were obtained; 10 (21.7%) were positive, assessed to be due to contamination.

CONCLUSION

Preperitoneal CWI of ropivacaine is a good, safe addition to a multimodal analgesia regimen for colorectal surgery. CWI can reduce morphine consumption without increasing adverse effects.

Evaluation of novel local anesthetic wound infiltration techniques for postoperative pain following colorectal resection surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Novel local anesthetic blocks have become increasingly popular in the multimodal pain management following abdominal surgery, but have not been evaluated in a procedure-specific manner in colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of novel local anesthetic techniques in colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (date range, January 1990 to February 2013) STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing a novel local anesthetic technique with placebo/routine analgesia in adults undergoing open or laparoscopic colonic or rectal resection were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

This is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating novel local anesthetic wound infiltration techniques such as wound catheter, transversus abdominis plane block, and intraperitoneal instillation in colorectal surgical procedures. The comparator group was defined as placebo/routine analgesia.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was opiate requirement at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included opiate requirements at 48 hours, pain numerical rating score at 24 and 48 hours at rest and on movement, recovery (length of stay, nausea and vomiting, time until bowel movement and diet resumption), and complications. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate specific local anesthetic techniques and open and laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials compared local anesthetic techniques with placebo/routine analgesia. Local anesthetic techniques demonstrated a significant reduction in opiate requirement at 48 hours. Local anesthetic techniques were also associated with lower pain scores on movement at 24 and 48 hours, shorter length of stay, and earlier resumption of diet.

LIMITATIONS

The diverse study design led to statistical heterogeneity in several analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel local anesthetic wound infiltration techniques in colorectal surgery appear to reduce opiate requirements, to reduce pain scores, and to improve recovery in comparison with placebo/routine analgesia.