Risks of serious adverse events with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly recommended for perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic treatments. Concerns regarding the potential for serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with perioperative NSAID treatment are especially relevant following gastrointestinal surgery. We assessed the risks of SAEs with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the harmful effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome was an incidence of SAEs. We systematically searched for eligible trials in five major databases up to January 2024. We performed risk of bias assessments to account for systematic errors, trial sequential analysis (TSA) to account for the risks of random errors, performed meta-analyses using R and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to describe the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 22 trials enrolling 1622 patients for our primary analyses. Most trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses (risk ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19; I2 = 4%; p = .24; very low certainty of evidence) and TSA indicated a lack of information on the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo on the risks of SAEs. Post-hoc beta-binomial regression sensitivity analyses including trials with zero events showed a reduction in SAEs with NSAIDs versus placebo (odds ratio 0.73; CI 0.54-0.99; p = .042).

CONCLUSION

In adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, there was insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the effects of NSAIDs on SAEs. The certainty of the evidence was very low.

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.

Comparing the efficacy of peritonsillar injection of bupivacaine and intravenous acetaminophen on post-tonsillectomy pain in children

INTRODUCTION

In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy of peritonsillar injection of bupivacaine and intravenous acetaminophen on post-tonsillectomy pain in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized double-blind clinical trial study 60 children with ASA = I-II aged 5-12 years undergoing tonsillectomy were involved. The first group received bupivacaine at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg that was injected into the bed and the anterior crease of each tonsil. The second group was given intravenous acetaminophen at a dose of 12.5 mg/kg. The patient's pain score at 10, 30, 60 min after his/her admission to recovery room and 120, 240 and 360 min after the surgery was recorded using CHEOPS. Patient's sedation score, nausea or vomiting, the time of the first request for analgesia and the time of starting oral feeding were recorded and analyzed too.

RESULTS

There was no significant differences in mean age (p value = 0.44), gender (p value = 0.79), weight (p value = 0.36), height (p value = 0.17), anesthesia duration (p.value = 0.85) and surgery duration (p.value = 0.73) between two groups. Postoperative pain was significantly less in the bupivacaine group at 240 and 360 min after the surgery. The mean sedation score was higher in the bupivacaine group but not significantly. There was no significant difference between groups regarding the nausea and vomiting, the first analgesics request time and the start time of oral feeding.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of the present study, since administration of peritonsillar bupivacaine compared to acetaminophen had a better effect on managing postoperative pain and improving sedation and also since no complications were reported; therefore, peritonsillar infiltration with bupivacaine is suggested for pediatric tonsillectomy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors which reduce the length of stay associated with elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe ambulatory procedure in appropriately selected patients; however, day case rates remain low. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify interventions which are effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) or improving the day case rate for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Comparative English-language studies describing perioperative interventions applicable to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adult patients and their impact on LOS or day case rate were included.

RESULTS

Quantitative data were available for meta-analysis from 80 studies of 10,615 patients. There were an additional 17 studies included for systematic review. The included studies evaluated 14 peri-operative interventions. Implementation of a formal day case care pathway was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (MD = 24.9 h, 95% CI, 18.7-31.2, p < 0.001) and an improved day case rate (OR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.1, p = 0.005). Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, dexamethasone and prophylactic antibiotics were associated with smaller reductions in LOS.

CONCLUSION

Care pathway implementation demonstrated a significant impact on LOS and day case rates. A limited effect was noted for smaller independent interventions. In order to achieve optimal day case targets, a greater understanding of the effective elements of a care pathway and local barriers to implementation is required.

Impact of bupivacaine injection to trocar sites on postoperative pain following laparoscopic hysterectomy: Results from a prospective, multicentre, double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic surgery has numerous advantages over open surgery in view of postoperative pain. In this context, to elevate its benefits and patient satisfaction, different pain management interventions have been used so far. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of bupivacaine injection to trocar sites following laparoscopic hysterectomy for the management of postoperative pain.

STUDY DESIGN

In this study, patients were randomized into two groups (56 cases; 52 controls). A single injection of bupivacaine (0.5 %, 5 mg/mL) was introduced to trocar sites under subcutaneous tissue at a dose of 4 ml for the umbilicus and 2 ml for each 5-mm ancillary trocar site in the study group. No bupivacaine was administered to the control group. The primary aim was to measure differences in 2 -h postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores between the two groups. The secondary aims were to evaluate differences between 1-, 4-, 6-, 24- and 48 -h postoperative NRS pain scores, surgical complications, estimated blood loss, duration of operation and analgesic consumption.

RESULTS

The number of postoperative rescue doses of analgesics was found to be lower in the study group compared to the control group (median of 2 vs. 4; p < 0.01). The 1-, 4-, 6-, 24- and 48-hour postoperative NRS pain scores were also found to be lower in the study group compared to the control group (p < 0.01 at each follow-up). The mean duration of surgery and uterus removal, as well as the estimated blood loss, were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that bupivacaine injection to trocar sites is an effective and safe method for reducing pain following laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Evaluation of dexmedetomidine in combination with sufentanil or butorphanol for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of gastrointestinal tumors: A quasi-experimental trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in combination with sufentanil or butorphanol for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of a gastrointestinal tumor.This quasi-experimental trial was conducted in Nanchang, China, from January 2014 to December 2015. Eighty patients (age 27-70 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) undergoing laparoscopic resection of a gastrointestinal tumor were randomized into 4 groups and offered intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pain control after surgery. The patients received sufentanil 2.0 μg/kg in combination with dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg (group S1) or 2.0 μg/kg (group S2), or butorphanol 0.15 mg/kg in combination with dexmedetomidine 1.5 0 μg/kg (group N1) or 2.0 μg/kg (group N2). Oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, visual analog scale score, and Ramsay sedation score were recorded at enrollment (T0), at extubation (T1), and 4 (T2), 8 (T3), 12 (T4), 24 (T5), and 48 (T6) hours thereafter. Side effects and satisfaction scores were evaluated after surgery.MAP increased in all groups at T1 but not significantly so when compared with T0. Heart rate decreased significantly in group S2 when compared with the other groups at T1-T5 (P < 0.05). MAP decreased significantly in group S2 when compared with group S1 at T4-T6 (P < 0.05). MAP increased significantly in group N1 when compared with group N2 at T4-T5 (P < 0.05). There was a statistically significant decrease in mean visual analog scale score in group S2 when compared with group S1 at T2 (P < 0.05) and group N2 at T1-T2 (P < 0.05). Two patients in group S1 had vomiting. There were no reports of drowsiness, respiratory depression, or other complications. The satisfaction score was higher in group S2 than in the other groups.Dexmedetomidine in combination with sufentanil or butorphanol can be used safely and effectively for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of a gastrointestinal tumor. The combination of dexmedetomidine 2.0 μg/kg and sufentanil is particularly beneficial in these patients.

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

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery and overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review with regards to benefits while we considered quasi-randomised studies and non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 58 trials, of which 48 trials with 2849 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (1558 participants) versus control (1291 participants) contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. All the trials except one trial with 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various intraperitoneal local anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine in the liquid form was the most common local anaesthetic used. There were considerable differences in the methods of local anaesthetic instillation including the location (subdiaphragmatic, gallbladder bed, or both locations) and timing (before or after the removal of gallbladder) between the trials. There was no mortality in either group in the eight trials that reported mortality (0/236 (0%) in local anaesthetic instillation versus 0/210 (0%) in control group; very low quality evidence). One participant experienced the outcome of serious morbidity (eight trials; 446 participants; 1/236 (0.4%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 0/210 (0%) in the control group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; very low quality evidence). Although the remaining trials did not report the overall morbidity, three trials (190 participants) reported that there were no intra-operative complications. Twenty trials reported that there were no serious adverse events in any of the 715 participants who received local anaesthetic instillation. None of the trials reported participant quality of life, return to normal activity, or return to work.The effect of local anaesthetic instillation on the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with benefit and no difference of intervention (three trials; 242 participants; 89/160 (adjusted proportion 61.0%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 40/82 (48.8%) in control group; RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58; very low quality evidence). The MD in length of hospital stay was 0.04 days (95% CI -0.23 to 0.32; five trials; 335 participants; low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the local anaesthetic instillation group than the control group at four to eight hours (32 trials; 2020 participants; MD -0.99 cm; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.88 on a VAS scale of 0 to 10 cm; very low quality evidence) and at nine to 24 hours (29 trials; 1787 participants; MD -0.53 cm; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.44; very low quality evidence). Various subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the influence of the different local anaesthetic agents, different methods of local anaesthetic instillation, and different controls on the effectiveness of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation were inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that it reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is unknown and likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to identify the best method of local anaesthetic wound infiltration with regards to the type of local anaesthetic, dosage, and time of administration of the local anaesthetic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify studies of relevance to this review. We included randomised clinical trials for benefit and quasi-randomised and comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, trials comparing different local anaesthetic agents for local anaesthetic wound infiltration, and trials comparing the different times of local anaesthetic wound infiltration were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis models using RevMan. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. All the 26 trials except one trial of 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Nineteen of the trials with 1263 randomised participants provided data for this review. Ten of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control. One of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration with two inactive controls, normal saline and no intervention. Two of the 19 trials had four arms comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration with inactive controls in the presence and absence of co-interventions to decrease pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Four of the 19 trials had three or more arms that could be included for the comparison of local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control and different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration. The remaining two trials compared different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration.Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seventeen trials randomised a total of 1095 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration (587 participants) versus no local anaesthetic wound infiltration (508 participants). Various anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine was the commonest local anaesthetic used. There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/280 (0%) in local anaesthetic infiltration group versus 0/259 (0%) in control group). The effect of local anaesthetic on the proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was imprecise and compatible with increase or no difference in serious adverse events (seven trials; 539 participants; 2/280 (0.8%) in local anaesthetic group versus 1/259 (0.4%) in control; RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; very low quality evidence). None of the serious adverse events were related to local anaesthetic wound infiltration. None of the trials reported patient quality of life. The proportion of participants who were discharged as day surgery patients was higher in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than in the no local anaesthetic infiltration group (one trial; 97 participants; 33/50 (66.0%) in the local anaesthetic group versus 20/47 (42.6%) in the control group; RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.28; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the length of hospital stay was compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (four trials; 327 participants; MD -0.26 days; 95% CI -0.67 to 0.16; very low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 cm) were lower in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than the control group at 4 to 8 hours (13 trials; 806 participants; MD -1.33 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -1.54 to -1.12; very low quality evidence) and 9 to 24 hours (12 trials; 756 participants; MD -0.36 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -0.53 to -0.20; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the time taken to return to normal activity between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the time taken to return to normal activity (two trials; 195 participants; MD 0.14 days; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.87; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported on return to work.Four trials randomised a total of 149 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration prior to skin incision (74 participants) versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration at the end of surgery (75 participants). Two trials randomised a total of 176 participants to four different local anaesthetics (bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, ropivacaine, neosaxitoxin). Although there were differences between the groups in some outcomes the changes were not consistent. There was no evidence to support the preference of one local anaesthetic over another or to prefer administration of local anaesthetic at a specific time compared with another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic wound infiltration (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that infiltration reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials at low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Regional anesthesia for laparoscopic surgery: a narrative review

Laparoscopic surgery has advanced remarkably in recent years, resulting in reduced morbidity and shorter hospital stay compared with open surgery. Despite challenges from the expanding array of laparoscopic procedures performed with the use of pneumoperitoneum on increasingly sick patients, anesthesia has remained largely unchanged. At present, most laparoscopic operations are usually performed under general anesthesia, except for patients deemed "too sick" for general anesthesia. Recently, however, several large, retrospective studies questioned the widely held belief that general anesthesia is the best anesthetic method for laparoscopic surgery and suggested that regional anesthesia could also be a reasonable choice in certain settings. This narrative review is an attempt to critically summarize current evidence on regional anesthesia for laparoscopic surgery. Because most available data come from large, retrospective studies, large, rigorous, prospective clinical trials comparing regional vs. general anesthesia are needed to evaluate the true value of regional anesthesia in laparoscopic surgery.

Does single-dose preoperative dexamethasone minimize stress response and improve recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Stress response after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is less compared with open cholecystectomy, but is still responsible for significant postoperative morbidity. Though preoperative glucocorticoids were found to be effective in reducing the response in open surgical procedures, their role in minimal access surgery is not clear.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of single-dose preoperative dexamethasone in reducing the stress response and postoperative morbidity after LC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 70 patients undergoing elective LC were randomized to receive either dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously), or placebo. The change in C-reactive protein levels after LC, pain scores at rest, and on exertion and narcotic requirements, the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), anti-emetic requirement, peak expiratory flow rate in both groups were compared.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone was more effective in controlling late PONV (P=0.05). The antiemetic requirement was significantly less in the dexamethasone group (0.56 mg vs. 2.24 mg; P=0.02). Median pain scores were significantly less in the dexamethasone group at 24 hours at rest (P=0.002) and on exertion at 24 and 48 hours (P=0.03 and 0.001). Analgesic requirement was less in the test group (22.9 mg vs. 29.9 mg; P=0.054). The peak expiratory flow rate at 48 hours was higher in the dexamethasone group (315.28 vs. 285.8 l/min; P=0.04). The dexamethasone group showed significantly less elevation of C-reactive protein levels at 24 hours (7.17 microg/mL vs. 17.53 microg/mL; P=0.003) and 48 hours (10.65 microg/mL vs. 23.18 microg/mL; P=0.02) postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative single-dose dexamethasone significantly reduces the pain scores, PONV, and antiemetic requirements while improving the respiratory function in the postoperative period after LC.

Effect of preoperative rectal indomethacin on postoperative pain reduction after open cholecystectomy

The preoperative administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been shown to have a positive impact on postoperative pain, but there is little research regarding the use of rectal NSAIDs given before surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of rectally administered indomethacin on postoperative pain in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy. A randomized controlled design was used to compare rectally administered indomethacin with placebo. Pain intensity, total opioid dose, and postoperative time to first request for analgesic were evaluated. The indomethacin group experienced significantly less postoperative pain and required less total opioid dose compared with the placebo group. Preoperative rectal administration of indomethacin reduces postoperative pain in open cholecystectomy when compared with placebo.

[Safety and effectiveness of acute postoperative pain treatment in a series of 3670 patients]

OBJECTIVES

To improve the safety and effectiveness of acute postoperative pain treatment in patients under the care of our acute pain clinic, we set 3 objectives: to establish a computerized registry updated daily for all patients treated in the unit, to define categories of quality indicators for assessing the results of acute postoperative pain treatment, and to compare our results with those reported in the literature.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective study of all patients treated by our pain clinic from May 2004 through June 2007. We analyzed 19 previously defined indicators in 4 categories: case characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and patient satisfaction. We then compared the results to those in the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 3670 patients were included. Results for the most important indicators were as follows: mean follow-up time, 3.1 days (range 1-12 days); effectiveness, 92%; severe pain (>7 on a numerical scale) at rest, 1%; moderate pain (4-6 on the scale) on movement, 31%; accidental catheter removal, 6%; and medication error, 0.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily follow-up and recording of data for patients treated by the acute pain unit facilitates the evaluation of our clinical practice and contributes with improving safety and effectiveness. Comparison with reports in the literature reveals the great heterogeneity of quality assurance indicators that have been defined.