Double-blind randomized sham controlled trial of intraperitoneal bupivacaine during emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be a way of reducing pain. A previous version of this Cochrane Review found very low-certainty evidence on the benefits and harms of the intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 19 January 2021 together with reference checking of studies retrieved. We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021. We contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, publication status, or relevance of outcome measure) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, for the review. We excluded non-randomised studies, and studies where the method of allocating participants to a treatment was not strictly random (e.g. date of birth, hospital record number, or alternation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, pain, return to activity and work, and non-serious adverse events. The analysis included both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevManWeb. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using predefined domains, graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-five completed trials were included, of which 76 trials contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. This included a total of 4957 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (2803 participants) and control (2154 participants). Most trials only included participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and those who were at low anaesthetic risk (ASA I and II). The most commonly used local anaesthetic agent was bupivacaine. Methods of instilling the local anaesthetic varied considerably between trials; this included location and timing of application. The control groups received 0.9% normal saline (69 trials), no intervention (six trials), or sterile water (two trials). One trial did not specify the control agent used. None of the trials provided information on follow-up beyond point of discharge from hospital. Only two trials were at low risk of bias. Seven trials received external funding, of these three were assessed to be at risk of conflicts of interest, a further 17 trials declared no funding. We are very uncertain about the effect intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control on mortality; zero mortalities in either group (8 trials; 446 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.34); 13 trials; 988 participants; discharge on same day of surgery (RR 1.43; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.20; 3 trials; 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of hospital stay (MD -0.10 days; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.01; 12 trials; 936 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on health-related quality of life, return to normal activity or return to work. Pain scores, as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), were lower in the intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation group compared to the control group at both four to eight hours (MD -0.99 cm VAS; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.79; 57 trials; 4046 participants; low-certainty of evidence) and nine to 24 hours (MD -0.68 cm VAS; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49; 52 trials; 3588 participants; low-certainty of evidence). In addition, we found two trials that were still ongoing, and one trial that was completed but with no published results. All three trials are registered on the WHO trial register.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and proportion of patients discharged on the same day of surgery because the certainty of evidence was very low. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude an increase in adverse events. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of stay in hospital after surgery. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic may reduce pain at up to 24 hours for low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be at low risk of systematic and random errors, should fully report mortality and side effects, and should focus on clinical outcomes such as quality of life.

High-Volume, Low-Concentration Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine Study in Emergency Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blinded, Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) often results in postoperative pain, especially in the abdomen. Intraperitoneal local anesthesia (IPLA) reduces pain after LC. Acute cholecystitis-associated inflammation, increased gallbladder wall thickness, dissection difficulties, and a longer operative time are several reasons for assuming a benefit in pain scores in urgent LC with IPLA application. The aim was to determine the postoperative analgesic efficacy of high-volume, low-dose intraperitoneal bupivacaine in urgent LC. Materials and Methods. Fifty-seven patients who were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II were randomly assigned to receive either normal saline (control group) or intraperitoneal bupivacaine (test group) at the beginning or end of urgent LC. The primary outcome was the postoperative pain score of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes included Visual Rating Prince Henry Scale (VRS), patient satisfaction, and analgesic consumption. Results. Postoperative VAS scores at the first and fourth hours were significantly lower in the test group than in the control group (P < .001). Postoperative VRS scores at the first, fourth, and eighth hours were significantly lower in the test group than in the control group (P < .001, P = .002, P = .004, respectively). Analgesic use was significantly higher in the control group at the first postoperative hour (P < .001). Shoulder pain was significantly lower, and patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the test group relative to the control group (both P < .001). Conclusion. High-volume, low-concentration intraperitoneal bupivacaine resulted in better postoperative pain control and reduced incidence of shoulder pain and analgesic consumption in urgent LC.

Surgical management of acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Acute cholecystitis occurs in approximately 1% of patients with known gallstones. It presents as a surgical emergency and usually requires hospitalisation for treatment. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Cholecystectomy is advocated for acute cholecystitis; however, the timing of cholecystectomy and the value of the additional treatments have been a matter of debate. This review examines the available evidence regarding the optimal surgical management of patients with acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, databases for English language publications. The MeSH headings 'cholecystitis', 'acute', 'gallbladder', 'inflammation', 'surgery', 'cholecystectomy', 'laparoscopic', 'robotic', 'telerobotic' and 'computer-assisted' were used.

RESULTS

Data from eight randomised controlled trails and three population-based analyses show that early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis performed on the index admission is safe and not associated with increased conversion rates or morbidity in comparison to conservative treatment followed by elective cholecystectomy. Delaying cholecystectomy increases readmissions for gallstone-related events, complications, hospital stay and mortality in the elderly. Early cholecystectomy is also more cost-effective. Randomised trials addressing antibiotic use in acute cholecystitis suggest that antibiotics should be stopped on the day of cholecystectomy. Insufficient trials have been performed to address the optimal analgesia regime post cholecystectomy. Similarly, a lack of trials on intraoperative cholangiography and management of common bile duct stones in patients with acute cholecystitis means that treatment of concomitant bile duct stones should be based on institutional expertise and resource availability. As regards acute cholecystitis in elderly and high-risk patients, case series and retrospective studies would suggest that cholecystectomy is more effective and of lower mortality than percutaneous cholecystostomy. There is not enough evidence to support the routine use of robotic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy or natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial evidence would favour a policy of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy following admission with acute cholecystitis. The optimal approach to support early cholecystectomy is suggested but requires evidence from further randomised trials.