A randomized, prospective comparison of pain after gasless laparoscopy and traditional laparoscopy

Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO₂ pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures.

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data.

RESULTS

63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45-2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14-3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26-60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD - 18.74 [CI - 29.23, - 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD - 3.94 [CI - 5.93, - 1.95] and gynaecology MD - 1.75 [CI - 2.64, - 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low.

CONCLUSION

Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.

The risk of shoulder pain after laparoscopic surgery for infertility is higher in thin patients

Postlaparoscopic shoulder pain (PLSP) is a common clinical problem that needs to be addressed by medical professionals who are currently perform laparoscopic surgeries. The purpose of this study was to determine the perioperative clinical factors and demographic characteristics associated with PLSP. A prospective observational study was performed with 442 inpatients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for infertility. The pain visual analogue scale was used as the measuring instrument. To identify the predictors of PLSP, we performed multivariate conditional logistic regression. PLSP was correlated with body mass index (BMI, odds ratio = 0.815). The incidence of shoulder pain and more severe shoulder pain in patients with a lower BMI was significantly higher than it was in patients with a higher BMI, and BMI was significantly negatively correlated with PLSP. Most of the patients (95%) began to experience shoulder pain on the first postoperative day, and it rarely occurred on the day of surgery. Patients with lower BMI presented a higher risk of reporting shoulder pain on the first postoperative day. We should identify high-risk patients in advance and make specific treatment plans according to the characteristics of their symptoms.

Gasless Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with New Abdominal-Wall Retraction System

Background and Objectives

Gasless laparoscopy is an alternative method to reduce the number of carbon dioxide (CO₂)-insufflated, pneumoperitoneum-related problems including shoulder pain, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and decreased cardiopulmonary function. In this study, we investigated the feasibility of gasless total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with a newly developed abdominal-wall retraction system.

Methods

Abdominal-wall retraction for gasless laparoscopy was performed using the newly developed J-shape retractor and the Thompson surgical retractor. Surgical outcomes between gasless TLH and conventional CO₂-based TLH were compared for each of 40 patients for the period from January 2017 to October 2019.

Results

Between gasless TLH and conventional CO₂-based TLH, no significant differences were observed for age, body mass index, parity, or surgical indications. The mean retraction setup time from skin incision was 7.4 min (range: 4-12 min) with gasless TLH. The mean total operation times were 87.9 min (range: 65-170) with gasless TLH and 90 min (range: 45-180) with conventional TLH, which showed no significant difference. Estimated blood loss and uterus weight also showed no significant intergroup difference. No major complications related to the ureter, bladder, or bowel were encountered.

Conclusion

Our new abdominal-wall retraction system for gasless TLH allowed for easy setup and a proper operation field in the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals.

METHODS

This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis-Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies.

DISCUSSION

This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338.

Semi-Fowler positioning in addition to the pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre reduces shoulder pain following gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery

Introduction

The semi-Fowler position, defined as a body position at 30° head-of-bed elevation, has been shown to increase intra-abdominal pressure.

Aim

To investigate the impact of semi-Fowler positioning in addition to the pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre (PRM) on post-laparoscopic shoulder pain.

Material and methods

One hundred and six patients (mean age: 43 ±12 years) undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery (LS) were included. The patients were divided into three groups: group 1 consisted of patients receiving PRM in the neutral position, group 2 comprised patients receiving PRM in the semi-Fowler position, and patients in the control group received neither PRM nor additional positioning. Information concerning wound and shoulder pain (post-laparoscopic shoulder pain – PLSP) at postoperative 6, 12 and 24 h was recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS) for each patient.

Results

The PLSP scores at postoperative 6 h (5.71 ±0.86, 5.28 ±0.84 and 6.61 ±0.91, respectively, p < 0.001), 12 h (4.41 ±0.83, 4.01 ±0.82 and 5.32 ±0.97, respectively, p < 0.001), and 24 h (3.24 ±0.78, 2.44 ±0.73 and 4.34 ±0.85, respectively, p < 0.001) were significantly different among the groups, the lowest being in those who received PRM in addition to semi-Fowler positioning.

Conclusions

Semi-Fowler positioning in addition to PRM significantly reduces post-laparoscopic shoulder pain. We assume that the benefit gained using the semi-Fowler positioning is mainly derived from its potential to better evacuate the remaining abdominal gas following LS.

Pain after laparoscopic surgery: Focus on shoulder-tip pain after gynecological laparoscopic surgery

Laparoscopy, one of minimally invasive procedures, is a commonly used procedure in diagnosis and management of various kinds of clinical problems, including gynecologic organ-related diseases. Compared with conventional exploratory laparotomy, the benefits of laparoscopic surgery include reduction of surgical wound, decreasing in postoperative pain, shortening hospital stay, rapid recovery, and a better cosmetic result. However, there are still up to 80% of patients after laparoscopic surgery complaining of high levels of pain and needing pain relief. Postlaparoscopic pain can be separated into distinct causes, such as surgical trauma- or incision wound-associated inflammatory change, and pneumoperitoneum (carbon dioxide [CO2])-related morphological and biochemical changes of peritoneum and diaphragm. The latter is secondary to irritation, stretching, and foreign body stimulation, leading to phrenic neuropraxia and subsequent shoulder-tip pain (STP). STP is the most typical unpleasant experience of patients after laparoscopic surgery. There are at least 11 strategies available to attempt to decrease postlaparoscopic STP, including (1) the use of an alternative insufflating gas in place of CO2, (2) the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in place of standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, (3) the use of warmed or warmed and humidified CO2, (4) gasless laparoscopy, (5) subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal anesthesia, (6) local intraperitoneal anesthesia, (7) actively expelling out of gas, (8) intraperitoneal drainage, (9) fluid instillation, (10) pulmonary recruitment maneuvers, and (11) others and combination. The present article is limited in discussing postlaparoscopic STP. We extensively review published articles to provide a better strategy to reduce postlaparoscopic STP.

Interventions to reduce shoulder pain following gynaecological laparoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure used to diagnose and treat various gynaecological conditions. Shoulder-tip pain (STP) as a result of the laparoscopy occurs in up to 80% of women, with potential for significant morbidity, delayed discharge and readmission. Interventions at the time of gynaecological laparoscopy have been developed in an attempt to reduce the incidence and severity of STP.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of methods for reducing the incidence and severity of shoulder-tip pain (STP) following gynaecological laparoscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 8 August 2018. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions used during or immediately after gynaecological laparoscopy to reduce the incidence or severity of STP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes: incidence or severity of STP and adverse events of the interventions; secondary outcomes: analgesia usage, delay in discharge, readmission rates, quality-of-life scores and healthcare costs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (3284 women). Laparoscopic procedures in these studies varied from diagnostic procedures to complex operations. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.Specific technique versus "standard" technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneumUse of a specific technique of releasing the pneumoperitoneum (pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre, extended assisted ventilation or actively aspirating intra-abdominal gas) reduced the severity of STP at 24 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.50; 5 RCTs; 670 participants; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) and reduced analgesia usage (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.35; 4 RCTs; 570 participants; I² = 91%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in the incidence of STP at 24 hours (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.82; 1 RCT; 118 participants; low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in the only study assessing this outcome.Fluid instillation versus no fluid instillationFluid instillation is probably associated with a reduction in STP incidence (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.66; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) and severity (mean difference (MD) (0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) scale) -2.27, 95% CI -3.06 to -1.48; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I² = 29%, moderate-quality evidence) at 24 hours, and may reduce analgesia usage (MD -12.02, 95% CI -23.97 to -0.06; 2 RCTs; 205 participants, low-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Intraperitoneal drain versus no intraperitoneal drainUsing an intraperitoneal drain may reduce the incidence of STP at 24 hours (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; 3 RCTs; 417 participants; I² = 90%, low-quality evidence) and may reduce analgesia use within 48 hours post-operatively (SMD -1.84, 95% CI -2.14 to -1.54; 2 RCTs; 253 participants; I² = 90%). We are uncertain whether it reduces the severity of STP at 24 hours, as the evidence was very low quality (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) -1.85, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.55; 3 RCTs; 320 participants; I² = 70%).No study measured adverse events.Subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control (no fluid instillation, normal saline or Ringer's lactate)There is probably little or no difference between the groups in incidence of STP (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.23; 4 RCTs; 336 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in STP severity (MD -1.13, 95% CI -2.52 to 0.26; 1 RCT; 50 participants; low-quality evidence), both measured at 24 hours. However, the intervention may reduce post-operative analgesia use (SMD-0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.21; 2 RCTs; 129 participants; I² = 51%, low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in any study.Local anaesthetic into peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic) versus normal salineLocal anaesthetic into the peritoneal cavity may reduce the incidence of STP at 4 to 8 hours post-operatively (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I² = 56%; low-quality evidence). Our other outcomes of interest were not assessed.Warmed, or warmed and humidified CO₂ versus unwarmed and unhumidified CO₂There may be no difference between these interventions in incidence of STP at 24 to 48 hours (OR 0.81 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 2 RCTs; 194 participants; I² = 12%; low-quality evidence) or in analgesia usage within 48 hours (MD -4.97 mg morphine, 95% CI -11.25 to 1.31; 1 RCT; 95 participants; low-quality evidence); there is probably little or no difference in STP severity at 24 hours (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) 0.11, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.97; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I² = 50%; moderate-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Gasless laparoscopy versus CO₂ insufflationGasless laparoscopy may be associated with increased severity of STP within 72 hours post-operatively when compared with standard treatment (MD 3.8 (0 to 30 VAS scale), 95% CI 0.76 to 6.84; 1 RCT; 54 participants, low-quality evidence), and there may be no difference in the risk of adverse events (OR 2.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 26.28; 1 RCT; 54 participants; low-quality evidence).No study measured the incidence of STP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate-quality evidence that the following interventions are associated with a reduction in the incidence or severity, or both, of STP, or a reduction in analgesia requirements for women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy: a specific technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneum; intraperitoneal fluid instillation; an intraperitoneal drain; and local anaesthetic applied to the peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic).There is low to moderate-quality evidence that subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic and warmed and humidified insufflating gas may not make a difference to the incidence or severity of STP.There is low-quality evidence that gasless laparoscopy may increase the severity of STP, compared with standard treatment.Few studies reported data on adverse events. Some potentially useful interventions have not been studied by RCTs of gynaecological laparoscopy.

Gasless balloon laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

The concept of balloon laparoscopy (B-LSC) pursues the simplification of conventional diagnostic laparoscopy (LSC). The pneumoperitoneum is replaced by a transparent balloon, which is positioned in front of the optical system. It shall be shown that with this arrangement diagnostic LSC can be performed outside of the operating room without requiring general anesthesia.

METHODS

An inflatable balloon was developed for a 30 degrees /3.5-mm rod lens. Intra-abdominally the balloon was expanded to a diameter of 30 mm by air insufflation, and B-LSC was performed. Twelve patients were examined in general anesthesia before laparoscopic surgery. Twelve patients were subjected to B-LSC fully awake or with sedation (midazolam or propofol/S-ketamine) as a "second-look" procedure by way of a flexible trocar (port) left in the abdominal wall at the end of previous operation. Eight patients have been first provided with a trocar under sedation (midazolam or propofol/S-ketamine) combined with local anesthesia, and B-LSC was performed before laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

On a scale of 1-5, the general impression was rated 1.9, the navigability to the different abdominal organs 2.5, the resolution 1.5, the stability of the system optic/trocar 2.1, the suitability of the balloon format 1.9, and the stability of the balloon against lateral shear forces 2.4. The degree of painfulness of the examination was rated 2.8, the tolerance of the port 1.4, and the degree of painfulness of trocar placement at 2.5. On a scale of 1 to 3, the strain of the abdominal musculature was rated 1.4 and the obstruction by adhesions 1.7.

DISCUSSION

B-LSC is technically practicable with good imaging qualities and without requiring pneumoperitoneum. It is tolerated in great extent under slight sedation and particularly well under deep sedation. The procedure is suitable for diagnostics of unclear abdominal conditions, as a second-look LSC and also as a staging LSC.

Camera trocar lifting in office gasless laparoscopic sterilization under local anesthesia

We evaluated 35 cases of a mechanical approach to abdominal wall lifting, used in office-based gasless laparoscopic sterilization under local anesthesia. Lifting of the abdominal wall, using the camera trocar as an anchoring device and complemented by suprapubic lifting by means of a towel clamp, led to passive intra-abdominal air filling, giving sufficient space to identify, anesthetize, coagulate and cut the Fallopian tubes. Only mild sedation was necessary. All women walked to and from the operating room. All had successful tubal ligation. The overall satisfaction rate was 97%. The mechanical lifting moment was not painful. With the exception of one woman with failed tubal anesthesia, all women had a low mean pain score of 2.6 (VAS 0–10). No complications occurred except one wound infection. The costs were < ¼ of those of traditional laparoscopic sterilization and office hysteroscopic sterilization. This approach is effective for office-based laparoscopic sterilization. Room air, two strings and a needle replace active gas insufflation and narcosis.

Gasless laparoscopy for benign gynecological diseases using an abdominal wall-lifting system

OBJECTIVES

The use of gasless laparoscopy with an abdominal wall-lifting device for benign gynecological diseases was compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO(2) pneumoperitoneum.

METHODS

From February 2007 to July 2007, 76 women with uterine and/or adnexal benign diseases and candidates for laparoscopic surgery were recruited in this study. Thirty-two women underwent gasless laparoscopic surgery and 44 women underwent pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Diverse pathologies, including adnexal cyst, uterine myoma and ectopic pregnancy, were treated successfully with gasless laparoscopic surgery. Compared with the patients in the pneumoperitoneum group, the similar hospital stay (P=0.353) and intraoperative blood loss (P=0.157) were observed. However, the mean operative time in the gasless group was significantly longer than that in the pneumoperitoneum group (P=0.003). No severe intraoperative or postoperative complications were found in either group, except for one case of laparotomic conversion in the pneumoperitoneum group due to dense pelvic adhesions. The total hospital charges were significantly less in the gasless group than in the pneumoperitoneum group (P=0.001). In 38 cases of ovarian cyst resection, the mean operative time in the gasless group remained longer than that in the pneumoperitoneum group (P=0.017). The total hospital charges were also significantly less in the gasless group than in the pneumoperitoneum group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary results demonstrated that the laparoscopic procedure using the gasless technique was a safe, effective method to treat benign gynecological diseases. Moreover, it was easy to master. As a minimally invasive treatment, gasless laparoscopic surgery provides a good choice to patients in the undeveloped regions in China without increasing the patients' and the government's burden significantly.

New tool (Laparotenser) for gasless laparoscopic myomectomy: a multicenter-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess feasibility and safety of a new surgical instrument-Laparotenser-in the procedure of gasless laparoscopic myomectomy.

DESIGN

Multicenter controlled study.

SETTING

Academic departments of obstetrics and gynecology, Italy.

PATIENT(S)

Thirty patients scheduled for gasless laparoscopic myomectomy (experimental group) and another group of 30 patients from our historical records that have undergone traditional laparoscopic myomectomy, matched with the cases for number of fibroids and for size of the main fibroid (control group).

INTERVENTION(S)

Gasless laparoscopic myomectomy using Laparotenser.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Surgical data.

RESULT(S)

No significant differences in total operative time, postoperative ileus, hospitalization, time to return to full activity/work, and complication rates were observed between groups. Intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin level, and surgical difficulty were significantly higher in the experimental than in the control group. Postoperative pain and number of analgesic vials used were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Although performed during the learning curve period, the use of the Laparotenser instrument in gasless laparoscopic myomectomy is a safe procedure.

Effect of Humidified and Heated CO2 During Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery on Analgesic Requirements and Postoperative Pain

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of humidified and heated CO(2) for pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery on analgesic requirements, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study (Canadian Task Force classification I).

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Ninety consecutive women scheduled for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

INTERVENTION

Operative laparoscopic management of adnexa surgery or adhesiolysis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Thirty consecutive patients were randomized into each study group. Group I received humidified, heated gas; group II dry, heated gas; and group III (control group) standard dry, cold gas. No significant difference in intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements or postoperative pain score between group I and group II was found. There was even a tendency (not significant) toward less pain and higher postoperative satisfaction in patients in the control group. Therefore, the evaluation was stopped after 53 patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of humidified, heated gas did not reduce postoperative pain or intraoperative analgesic requirements and is thus not preferable to standard dry, cold gas in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

Effects of closed suction drainage in reducing pain after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To estimate whether closed suction drainage of the pelvis after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) reduces the frequency and intensity of shoulder-tip, abdominal, and back pain.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification 1).

SETTING

Teaching medical center.

PATIENTS

One hundred sixty-four women.

INTERVENTION

LAVH.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

For group 1 (80 women), closed suction (Jackson-Pratt) drains were inserted into the peritoneal cavity and cul-de-sac, whereas for group 2 (84), no drains were placed. Shoulder-tip, abdominal, and back pain were evaluated by visual analog scores (VAS) 3, 24, and 48 hours after surgery. The frequency of shoulder-tip pain was significantly lower in group 1 at 24 hours (23% vs 40%, p = 0.013) and 48 hours (9% vs 21%, p = 0.024; VAS scores at 24 hrs 2.2 +/- 1.1 vs 3.8 +/- 1.3, p = 0.010; VAS scores at 48 hours 1.5 +/- 1.0 vs 2.5 +/- 1.2, p = 0.018). At 48 hours fewer women in group 1 experienced abdominal pain (31% vs 50%, p = 0.039; VAS scores 2.0 +/- 1.1 vs 4.0 +/- 1.3, p = 0.007). No statistically significant differences in frequency and VAS scores for back pain were found at any time. The quantity of oral analgesics was greater for group 2 than for group 1 (12.4 +/- 1.6 vs 9.0 +/- 1.4, p <0.001). Economic evaluation of analgesic requirements and material costs for the two groups showed that simple analgesics were more cost-effective than closed suction drainage in the treatment of pain.

CONCLUSION

Closed suction drains may reduce the frequency and intensity of shoulder-tip and abdominal pain and postoperative analgesia requirements after LAVH, but simple oral analgesics are more cost effective.

Prospective double-blind study of effect of ketorolac administration after laparoscopic urologic surgery

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To decrease postoperative dependence on narcotics for analgesia, we have evaluated ketorolac as an adjunct to perioperative pain control in patients undergoing laparoscopic urologic surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-five patients (34 male, 31 female) were randomized to receive either ketorolac tromethamine (15-30 mg IV q 6 h) or placebo prior to laparoscopic surgery. Patient-controlled analgesia in the form of morphine sulfate was provided. Operative factors such as the type of surgery, operative time, and estimated blood loss were recorded. Postoperative factors such as analog pain score (range 0-10), narcotic usage, and length of stay were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients completed the study. The average pain score was 2.2 and 4.5 for the ketorolac and placebo groups, respectively (P < 0.005). The mean amounts of total morphine used were 39.2 mg (ketorolac) and 62.5 mg (placebo) (P = 0.077). The length of stay was not significantly different in the ketorolac (2.5 days) and placebo (2.6 days) groups (P = 0.74). Operative times (P = 0.21) and estimated blood loss (P = 0.60) were not significantly different in the two groups. Ketorolac did not adversely affect renal function; serum creatinine changes were not significantly different from those in the patients receiving placebo (P = 0.50). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty necessitated more narcotic analgesia than did other laparoscopic procedures (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Ketorolac decreases the subjective perception of pain after laparoscopic urologic surgery. It is suggested that ketorolac administration decreases the amount of narcotic usage as well. Time to resumption of oral intake and length of hospital stay were not influenced by use of ketorolac.

Pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) results in less pain than open chole-cystectomy, it is not a pain-free procedure. Many methods of analgesia for pain after laparoscopy have been evaluated.

METHODS

Forty-two randomized controlled trials assessing interventions to reduce pain after LC are reviewed, as are the mechanisms and nature of pain after this procedure.

RESULTS

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, wound local anaesthetic, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic, intraperitoneal saline, a gas drain, heated gas, low-pressure gas and nitrous oxide pneumo-peritoneum have been shown to reduce pain after LC. The clinical significance of this pain reduction is questionable.

CONCLUSION

Pain after LC is multifactorial. Although many methods of analgesia produce short-term benefit, this does not equate with earlier discharge or improved postoperative function. However, single trials evaluating low-pressure insufflation, heated gas and multimodal analgesia suggest that clinically relevant benefits can be achieved.