Multi-Modal Analgesic Technique for Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Diagnostic Gynecological Laparoscopy: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Diagnostic laparoscopy Intraperitoneal lidocaine Multi-modal analgesia Pulmonary recruitment

Journal

Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences
ISSN: 1857-9655
Titre abrégé: Open Access Maced J Med Sci
Pays: North Macedonia
ID NLM: 101662294

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 23 02 2019
revised: 14 04 2019
accepted: 15 04 2019
entrez: 22 5 2019
pubmed: 22 5 2019
medline: 22 5 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Advancement in minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries make it one of the best choices for both the surgeon and the patient. The anesthesiologist had to improve the techniques used to control post-operative pain. In this study, we hyposethized that multi-modal analgesic technique which is a combination of two simple techniques (intraperitoneal lidocaine and pulmonary recruitment) allow better result than using only one of them. This randomised controlled, double-blind study was conducted in Kasr-Alainy hospital, faculty of medicine, Cairo University, Egypt from September 2017 till February 2018. Fifty female patients, scheduled for diagnostic gynecologic laparoscopy were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated using random computer allocation with numbered closed opaque envelopes into four study group. GM (n = 12): Patients received pulmonary recruitment maneuver and intra-peritoneal Lidocaine, GL (n = 13): Patients received intra-peritoneal Lidocaine, GP (n = 13): Patients received Pulmonary Recruitment Maneuver, GC (n = 12): Patients received passive exsufflation through the port site. In the ward, patients were asked to fulfil a questionnaire about pain severity using (VAS) at 1, 3, 6-hour post-operative both the patients and the anesthesiologist that assess the (VAS) were blind of the patient group. Regarding pain score between groups VAS 1 (the primary outcome) was lowest in GM {4.5 (3-5)} in comparison with other groups (P value = 0.015), while VAS 3 & VAS 6 wasn't statistically significant between groups. Regarding Time of first rescue analgesia; GM {3 (1.75-4)} showed the longest time in between groups (P-value = 0.042). As regard nausea and vomiting; there was no statistically significant difference in in-between groups. Application of Multi-modal analgesic technique allows better analgesia for a longer duration than the use of the sole technique for control of abdominal pain in patients undergoing diagnostic gynaecological laparoscopy.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Advancement in minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries make it one of the best choices for both the surgeon and the patient. The anesthesiologist had to improve the techniques used to control post-operative pain.
AIM OBJECTIVE
In this study, we hyposethized that multi-modal analgesic technique which is a combination of two simple techniques (intraperitoneal lidocaine and pulmonary recruitment) allow better result than using only one of them.
PATIENTS AND METHOD METHODS
This randomised controlled, double-blind study was conducted in Kasr-Alainy hospital, faculty of medicine, Cairo University, Egypt from September 2017 till February 2018. Fifty female patients, scheduled for diagnostic gynecologic laparoscopy were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated using random computer allocation with numbered closed opaque envelopes into four study group. GM (n = 12): Patients received pulmonary recruitment maneuver and intra-peritoneal Lidocaine, GL (n = 13): Patients received intra-peritoneal Lidocaine, GP (n = 13): Patients received Pulmonary Recruitment Maneuver, GC (n = 12): Patients received passive exsufflation through the port site. In the ward, patients were asked to fulfil a questionnaire about pain severity using (VAS) at 1, 3, 6-hour post-operative both the patients and the anesthesiologist that assess the (VAS) were blind of the patient group.
RESULTS RESULTS
Regarding pain score between groups VAS 1 (the primary outcome) was lowest in GM {4.5 (3-5)} in comparison with other groups (P value = 0.015), while VAS 3 & VAS 6 wasn't statistically significant between groups. Regarding Time of first rescue analgesia; GM {3 (1.75-4)} showed the longest time in between groups (P-value = 0.042). As regard nausea and vomiting; there was no statistically significant difference in in-between groups.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Application of Multi-modal analgesic technique allows better analgesia for a longer duration than the use of the sole technique for control of abdominal pain in patients undergoing diagnostic gynaecological laparoscopy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31110578
doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.184
pii: OAMJMS-7-1324
pmc: PMC6514327
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1324-1329

Références

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2000 Sep;44(8):929-33
pubmed: 10981568
Eur J Surg. 2001 Feb;167(2):84-96
pubmed: 11266262
Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1992 Dec;2(4):303-5
pubmed: 1341550
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003 Aug;10(3):311-5
pubmed: 14567803
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007 Aug;29(8):664-7
pubmed: 17714620
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Sep;106(3):213-5
pubmed: 19477443
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(5):505-10
pubmed: 20604657
Surg Endosc. 2011 Oct;25(10):3183-90
pubmed: 21487863
Pain Pract. 2012 Jul;12(6):485-96
pubmed: 22008277
Arch Surg. 2011 Dec;146(12):1360-6
pubmed: 22184293
J Surg Res. 2012 Dec;178(2):662-9
pubmed: 22763212
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012 Nov;165(1):110-4
pubmed: 22819575
Br J Surg. 2013 Sep;100(10):1290-4
pubmed: 23939841
Surg Endosc. 2014 Apr;28(4):1291-7
pubmed: 24357420
Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(5):825-9
pubmed: 24571870
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 12;(3):CD007049
pubmed: 24619479
J Int Med Res. 2014 Apr;42(2):307-19
pubmed: 24648482

Auteurs

Sherin Refaat (S)

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Ashraf Ali Mawgood (AA)

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Mohamed Al Sonbaty (MA)

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Maged Gamal (M)

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Abdelrazik Ahmed (A)

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Classifications MeSH