This Article Abstract Résumé de cet Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lee, I.-O. Articles by Lim, S.-H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee, I.-O. Articles by Lim, S.-H.

Pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the effect and timing of incisional and intraperitoneal bupivacaine

[La douleur post-cholécystectomie laparoscopique : l'effet et la chronologie de l'administration de bupivacaïne incisionnelle et intrapéritonéale]

Il-Ok Lee , MD PhD^*, Sun-Han Kim , MD PhD, Myung-Hoon Kong , MD PhD^*, Mi-Kyung Lee, MD PhD^*, Nan-Sook Kim , MD PhD^*, Young-Seok Choi, MD PhD^* and Sang-Ho Lim , MD PhD^*

^* From the Department of Anesthesia, College of Medicine, Korea University; Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, and the
Department of General Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Kyongki-do, South Korea.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Myung-Hoon Kong, Department of Anesthesia, Korea University Guro Hospital, 80 Guro-dong, Guro-ku, Seoul 152-703, South Korea. Phone: 82-2-818-6205; Fax: 82-2-851-1180; E-mail: iloklee{at}hotmail.com

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
Purpose: To examine the combined preemptive effects of somato-visceral blockade during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods: One hundred fifty-seven patients under general anesthesia receiving local infiltration and/or topical peritoneal local anesthesia were studied. Patients were randomized to receive a total of 150 mg (0.25% 60 mL) bupivacaine via periportal (20 mL) and intraperitoneal (40 mL with 1:200,000 epinephrine) administration of each. Group A received preoperative periportal bupivacaine before incision and intraperitoneal bupivacaine immediately after the pneumoperitoneum. Group B received periportal and intraperitoneal bupivacaine at the end of the operation. Group C (preoperative) and Group D (postoperative) received only periportal bupivacaine and Group E (preoperative) and Group F (postoperative) received only intraperitoneal bupivacaine. The control group received no treatment. Pain and nausea were recorded at one, two, three, six, nine, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hr postoperatively.

Results: Throughout the postoperative 48 hr, incisional somatic pain dominated over other pain localizations in the control group (P <0.05). The incisional pain of groups A, B, C and D was significantly lower than that of the control group in the first and second hours. The incisional pain of groups A and C was significantly lower than that of the control group in the first three hours.

Conclusion: Incisional pain dominated during the first two postoperative days after LC. Preoperative somato-visceral or somatic local anesthesia reduced incisional pain during the first three postoperative hours. A combination of somato-visceral local anesthetic treatment did not reduce intraabdominal pain, shoulder pain or nausea more than somatic treatment alone. Preoperative incisional infiltration of local anesthetics is recommended.

	Introduction

TOP Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
LAPAROSCOPIC cholecystectomy (LC) results in less postoperative pain and/or reduced analgesic consumption as compared with open cholecystectomy.¹ Although pain after LC is less intense than after open cholecystectomy, some patients still experience considerable discomfort during the first 24 postoperative hours.² Thus, several interventions have been investigated.^3–14 Variable analgesic effects of periportal infiltration of local anesthetics,^3–5 infiltration of the periportal parietal peritoneum,⁶ intraperitoneal spraying above the gall bladder,^7,8 instillation into the subdiaphragmatic space^9–14 and into the subhepatic space covering the area of the hepatoduodenal ligament have been reported.⁸ Some of them failed to show analgesic effects.^9,11–14

The preoperative analgesic effects of incisional local anesthetics,^2,4,5 or intraperitoneal local anesthetics^7,8 have been investigated. Most studies^2,4,5,8 failed to show a preemptive analgesic effect as compared with postoperative treatment.^6,15 We are unaware of any study investigating the effects of the combined somato-visceral local anesthetic preemptive blockade after elective LC. Therefore, our study was designed to investigate any differences in the nature of pain after LC and to examine the effects of combined somato-visceral local anesthetic blockade on postoperative pain or nausea.

	Methods

TOP Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
We examined the effects of preoperative with postoperative bupivacaine 0.25% 60 mL on pain in 157 inpatients undergoing elective LC in a prospective, randomized study. This study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients allergic to local anesthetics, as well as those with a history of severe systemic disease, were excluded from the study. Moreover, patients with chronic pain diseases other than gallstone disease were excluded. Patients ASA physical status III or greater and patients who had acute cholecystitis before the operation were also excluded.

One team of surgeons performed all operations. All patients received 5 mg midazolam intramuscularly 30 min before being transferred to the operating room. All operations were performed between 08:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. Anesthesia was induced using 5 mg•kg^–1 thiopentone and 1 mg•kg^–1 succinylcholine. After tracheal intubation, general anesthesia was maintained with 1–1.2% isoflurane (end-tidal concentration), oxygen/nitrous oxide (50%/50%). Relaxation was maintained with vecuronium 0.1 mg•kg^–1. After the induction of anesthesia, patients were randomly assigned to one of six groups of 22 patients each. The preoperative somato-visceral group (PRE-SV) received preoperative periportal 0.25% bupivacaine (20 mL) 15 min before incision and intraperitoneal 0.25% bupivacaine (40 mL with 1:200,000 epinephrine) immediately after the creation of pneumoperitoneum. The postoperative somato-visceral group (POST-SV) received the same periportal bupivacaine at the end of the operation and intraperitoneal bupivacaine before the trocars were withdrawn. The preoperative-somatic (PRE-S) and postoperative-somatic (POST-S) groups received only periportal bupivacaine and the preoperative-visceral (PRE-V) and postoperative-visceral (POST-V) groups received only intraperitoneal bupivacaine. The control group (n=25) received no treatment. The fascia, muscle, preperitoneal space, and the parietal peritoneum were infiltrated (infiltration of four port sites in total, 7 mL each for two 10-mm sites, 3 mL each for the other two 5-mm sites). Intraperitoneal bupivacaine was given as follows: immediately after the creation of a pneumoperitoneum, the surgeon sprayed bupivacaine on the upper surface of the liver and the subdiaphragmatic space to allow it to diffuse into the hepatodiaphragmatic space, near and above the hepatoduodenal ligament and above the gallbladder. This was done using a catheter inserted into the subcostal trocar under direct laparoscopic control. Residual intraperitoneal CO₂ was evacuated carefully at the end of surgery by manual compression of the abdomen with open trocars.

Before the induction of anesthesia, patients were instructed about the use of a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS: with endpoints ‘no pain’ and ‘worst pain’) for the measurement of pain and nausea. Postoperative pain was rated on a VAS at rest.

The time of arrival in the postoperative recovery room was defined as zero hour postoperatively. Pain intensity was measured at one, two, three, six, nine, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hr postoperatively. All patients were admitted in the general ward for two postoperative days. Patients were asked to rate incisional and intraabdominal pain at rest by a comparison of pain severity between the two pain localizations. Incisional pain was defined as superficial pain, wound pain, or pain located in the abdominal wall. Intraabdominal pain was defined as pain inside the abdomen, which may have been deep, dull, and more difficult to localize, and may have resembled biliary colic. Shoulder pain, and other pain was assessed at rest at the same intervals. The number of patients who experienced nausea and vomiting was assessed during the study period.

On emergence patients were asked, "Do you have any pain?" and given bolus iv ketorolac in 30 mg doses if they answered "yes", followed by an additional ketorolac 30 mg if requested by the patient. For postoperative analgesia, all patients received the following analgesia treatment: im ketorolac (30 mg) at eight-hour intervals for 48 hr, additional iv ketorolac 30 mg if requested by the patient. Opioids were administered on request (demerol 25 mg im) if the patient indicated that he was not satisfied with the level of analgesia that was reached. Only total amounts of requested additional ketorolac or opioids were recorded. Patients were also given metoclopramide 10 mg if they experienced nausea or vomiting, followed by additional metoclopramide 10 mg on request. Supplementary medication required in addition to the standard treatment was recorded.

No patients or observers were informed of the treatment group (preoperative or postoperative). A preoperative sample size calculation determined that a reduction of 3.0 relative to control value in mean postoperative pain score would be detectable using a sample size of 17 patients per group (total of seven groups for ANOVA analysis) for a one-tailed =0.05 and a study power of 0.9. We chose to study a minimum of 20 available patients per group. All data is expressed as means ± SD except the VAS and requirements of the analgesic which are depicted as median and interquatile range (25–75% confidence intervals). The Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test (for variables in which there was low frequency in at least one cell) were used to compare the presence of nausea, vomiting, shoulder pain, and other pain. Intergroup comparisons of VAS pain scores and other ordinal data were analyzed using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis one way of variance on ranks. Intragroup comparisons of VAS pain scores during the study period were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance or Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance on ranks. Comparison between groups and post-hoc testing was performed using the Dunnett test, Dunn test or Tukey test. A value of P <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

	Results

TOP Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
Demographic data, age, weight, sex, ASA physical status, and duration of surgery were similar in all groups (Table I). One hundred fifty-seven patients gave informed consent. Nine patients were excluded from the study: one patient had an intraabdominal abscess postoperatively, three patients had intraoperative complications and had to be converted to open cholecystectomy, one developed an infection in the troca site, one had intraoperative drainage of the subhepatic space, and three patients' data were not fully recorded.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 1 Intensity and localization of pain during the first 48 hr after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Pain was recorded by a visual analog scale (VAS) in the control group. Values are mean ± SD; *P <0.05.

View larger version (55K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 2 Intensity of incisional pain during the first 48 hr after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Pain was recorded by a visual analog scale (VAS). Values are median. *P <0.05.

View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 3 Intensity of abdominal pain during the first 48 hr after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Pain was recorded by a visual analog scale (VAS). Values are median.

A total of 38 patients experienced nausea. Of these, two experienced vomiting. Most (35 patients) experienced nausea within 24 hr of the operation. All required metoclopramide (Table II). Five patients in the control group, four in groups B and F respectively, two in groups D and E respectively, required metoclopramide twice.

Epigastric pain, headache, right flank pain, back pain, sore throat, and shivering were observed infrequently (Table II).

	Discussion

TOP Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
The results of this study support the use of somatic blockade to reduce surgical incisional pain but fail to show the combined preemptive effects of somato-visceral blockade on deep intraabdominal pain, nausea or shoulder pain. Preoperative combined somato-visceral or somatic bupivacaine blockade reduced overall incisional pain during the first three postoperative hours but had no significant effect on deep abdominal pain. Analgesic requirements for the first 48 hr after LC in the preoperative somato-visceral or somatic bupivacaine groups was reduced. We chose the time of arrival in the recovery room as ‘time 0’ because the elapsed time after preoperative or postoperative injection was not constant and the duration of surgery or emergence were not same. Even if analgesia began just after injection of the local anesthetic solution, we chose ‘time 0’as the time of arrival in the recovery room because the purpose of preemption was to inhibit not only surgical pain but also inflammatory pain after operation.

Indeed, some authors have shown that topical peritoneal local anesthesia is effective in controlling postoperative pain.^2,7,8,10,16 Others have shown that topical peritoneal local anesthesia is not effective in controlling postoperative pain.^9,11–14 The latter asserted that postoperative pain induced by LC had a considerable visceral component and that a lesser component was somatic in origin.⁹ To evaluate the nature of pain after LC, the control group, using no local anesthetics, was assessed. Although the median VAS pain scores were low in our study, incisional pain still dominated over visceral pain. These findings were confirmed by Ure et al.,² but opposed by Joris et al.,⁹ who found that intraabdominal pain dominated. Interestingly, we found that the median visceral VAS pain scores of these studies^2,9 and our results were similar. The median visceral VAS scores of these studies were usually below 3. We thought these pain scores were within the tolerable range. Our low visceral VAS scores may, in part, explain the lack of demonstrable effects of the combined somato-visceral or visceral regimen on the visceral pain.

While pain after LC is often dynamic and exacerbated by coughing or movement (supine to sitting), movement can also exacerbate nausea, vomiting or other pain. Usually, pain at rest and at movement is correlated after LC^9,17 and we expected movement would not exacerbate pain significantly. Even if dynamic pain can be a better measurement than static pain, we chose static pain because the purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of pain and other complications.

Our findings are also in contradiction with those of Pasqualucci et al.⁷ who found that an intraabdominal regimen (0.5% bupivacaine 20 mL) reduced postoperative pain and analgesic requirement if the treatment was administered before surgery. These authors did not evaluate the differences in the nature of the pain, incisional or deep intraabdominal. Moreover, they gave all patients 5 µg•kg^–1 iv fentanyl before surgery. It has been reported that systemic opioids administered preoperatively reduce postoperative pain and wound hyperalgesia beyond the period when these effects can be explained by the direct analgesic action of these drugs.¹⁷ We assumed that preoperative fentanyl could reduce somatic pain after surgery, so we chose not to use opioids before surgery.

Another explanation for the lack of efficacy may be that our dosage of intraperitoneal bupivacaine (0.25% 40 mL) was too small for coverage of the intraabdominal organ surface. However, Scheinin et al.¹¹ used a large-dose of 150 mg bupivacaine in the right subdiaphragmatic space and was unable to demonstrate any analgesic effect. Moreover, Bisgaard et al.¹⁸ used a direct multiple visceral infiltration with a spray of ropivacaine and was unable to show analgesic effects. Given our negative results with regard to intraabdominal pain, we do not recommend routine use of intraabdominal local anesthetics.

Usually the nausea occurred within 24 hr of the operation, while half of the shoulder-tip pain was distributed after 24 hr. The incidence of nausea and shoulder-tip pain in groups A and C tended to be lower than in the control group although these were not statistically significant. Visceral blockade had no effect on the incidence of nausea, shoulder-tip pain, or other pain. Our results contradict those of Bisgaard et al.,¹⁸ who used a total nausea score (severity of nausea) to evaluate effectiveness. We used the incidence of nausea to compare effectiveness; this might explain the lack of demonstrable effects. Another explanation may be that our technique of blockade did not last long enough, with the exception of the initial period (three hours after operation).

Although our findings seem promising for the use of preemptive bupivacaine, we must acknowledge various limitations regarding the design of this investigation. Although the anesthesia team involved in intraoperative care was aware of the bupivacaine analgesic technique, this team did not participate in data collection. The patients and data collectors were not informed of the treatment regimen and had no access to the anesthesia record. Second, we did not adopt a saline-control design, which may have raised more questions than a placebo-controlled study. Intraperitoneal saline treatment in itself can reduce postoperative pain.

In summary, incisional pain dominated during the first postoperative 48 hr after LC. A combination of incisional and intraabdominal local anesthetic treatment reduced incisional pain but had no effect on intraabdominal pain, nausea, or shoulder-tip pain in patients receiving preemptive analgesia. The effect of combined incisional and intraabdominal treatment was transient and no more favourable than the incisional treatment alone. Preoperative incisional infiltration of local anesthetics is recommended in LC.

Revision received March 12, 2001. Accepted for publication January 9, 2001.

	References

TOP Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
1 Joris J, Cigarini I, Legrand M, et al. Metabolic and respiratory changes after cholecystectomy performed via laparotomy or laparoscopy. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69: 341–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2 Ure BM, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, et al. Preincisional local anesthesia with bupivacaine and pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 1993; 7: 482–8.[Medline]

3 Johnson RC, Hedges AR, Morris R, Stamatakis JD. Ideal pain relief following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Int J Clin Pract 1999; 53: 16–8.[Medline]

4 Sarac AM, Aktan AO, Baykan N, Yegen C, Yalin R. The effect and timing of local anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1996; 6: 362–6.[Medline]

5 Bourget JL, Clark J, Joy N. Comparing preincisional with postincisional bupivacaine infiltration in the management of postoperative pain. Arch Surg 1997; 132: 766–9.[Abstract]

6 Alexander DJ, Ngoi SS, Lee L, et al. Randomized trial of periportal peritoneal bupivacaine for pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1996; 83: 1223–5.[Medline]

7 Pasqualucci A, De Angelis V, Contardo R, et al. Preemptive analgesia: intraperitoneal local anesthetic in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 11–20.[Medline]

8 Szem JW, Hydo L, Barie PS. A double-blind evaluation of intraperitoneal bupivacaine vs saline for the reduction of postoperative pain and nausea after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1996; 10: 44–8.[Medline]

9 Joris J, Thiry E, Paris P, Weerts J, Lamy M. Pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: characteristics and effect of intraperitoneal bupivacaine. Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 379–84.[Abstract]

10 Weber A, Munoz J, Garteiz D, Cueto J. Use of subdiaphragmatic bupivacaine instillation to control postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1997; 7: 6–8.[Medline]

11 Scheinin B, Kellokumpu I, Lindgren L, Haglund C, Rosenberg PH. Effect of intraperitoneal bupivacaine on pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995; 39: 195–8.[Medline]

12 Rademaker BM, Kalkman CJ, Odoom JA, de Wit L, Ringers J. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetics after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: effects on postoperative pain, metabolic responses and lung function. Br J Anaeth 1994; 72: 263–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13 Schulte-Steinberg H, Weninger E, Jokisch D, et al. Intraperitoneal versus interpleural morphine or bupivacaine for pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anesthesiology 1995; 82: 634–40.[Medline]

14 Raetzell M, Maier C, Schroder D, Wulf H. Intraperitoneal application of bupivacaine during laparoscopic cholecystectomy – risk or benefit? Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 967–72.[Abstract]

15 Elhakim M, Elkott M, Ali NM, Tahoun HM. Intraperitoneal lidocaine for postoperative pain after laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000; 44: 280–4.[Medline]

16 Chundrigar T, Hedges AR, Morris R, Stamatakis JD. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine for effective pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993; 75: 437–9.[Medline]

17 Tverskoy M, Oz Y, Isakson A, Finger J, Bradley EL Jr, Kissin I. Preemptive effect of fentanyl and ketamine on postoperative pain and wound hyperalgesia. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 205–9.[Medline]

18 Bisgaard T, Klarskov B, Kristiansen VB, et al. Multi-regional local anesthetic infiltration during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients receiving prophylactic multi-modal analgesia: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 1017–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19 Tsimoyiannis EC, Glantzounis G, Lekkas ET, Siakas P, Jabarin M, Tzourou H. Intraperitoneal normal saline and bupivacaine infusion for reduction of postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1998; 8: 416–20.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. P. Boddy, S. Mehta, and M. Rhodes The effect of intraperitoneal local anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2006; 103(3): 682 - 688. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Dahl and S. Moiniche Pre-emptive analgesia Br. Med. Bull., December 13, 2004; 71(1): 13 - 27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Résumé de cet Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lee, I.-O. Articles by Lim, S.-H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee, I.-O. Articles by Lim, S.-H.