Wiremu S MacFater1, Weisi Xia2, Ahmed Barazanchi2, Bruce Su'a2, Darren Svirskis3, Andrew G Hill2. 1. Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. wmac043@aucklanduni.ac.nz. 2. Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Grafton Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Modern perioperative care strategies aim to optimise perioperative care by reducing the body's stress response to surgery. A major facet of optimising an abdominal surgery analgesia programme is using a multimodal opioid sparing approach. Local anaesthetics have shown promise and there has been considerable research into the most effective route for their administration. This review aims to determine if there is a difference in analgesic efficacy between intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) and intravenous local anaesthetic (IVLA). MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: In concordance with the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted to identify randomised control trials that compared IVLA with IPLA in abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of interest were opioid analgesia requirements and pain score assessed by visual analogue score. Data were extracted and entered into pre-designed electronic spreadsheets. RESULTS: This review has identified six papers that compared intravenous lignocaine to intraperitoneal lignocaine. This review showed significantly lower morphine consumption at 4 and 24 h in the intraperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in pain scores. CONCLUSION: From the analysis of these studies, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic had an analgesic benefit over intravenous lignocaine with regard to decreased opioid consumption for abdominal surgery. Further research investigating IVL combined with intraperitoneal local anaesthetic is warranted.
INTRODUCTION: Modern perioperative care strategies aim to optimise perioperative care by reducing the body's stress response to surgery. A major facet of optimising an abdominal surgery analgesia programme is using a multimodal opioid sparing approach. Local anaesthetics have shown promise and there has been considerable research into the most effective route for their administration. This review aims to determine if there is a difference in analgesic efficacy between intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) and intravenous local anaesthetic (IVLA). MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: In concordance with the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted to identify randomised control trials that compared IVLA with IPLA in abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of interest were opioid analgesia requirements and pain score assessed by visual analogue score. Data were extracted and entered into pre-designed electronic spreadsheets. RESULTS: This review has identified six papers that compared intravenous lignocaine to intraperitoneal lignocaine. This review showed significantly lower morphine consumption at 4 and 24 h in the intraperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in pain scores. CONCLUSION: From the analysis of these studies, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic had an analgesic benefit over intravenous lignocaine with regard to decreased opioid consumption for abdominal surgery. Further research investigating IVL combined with intraperitoneal local anaesthetic is warranted.
Authors: Arman Kahokehr; Tarik Sammour; Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari; Lisa Thompson; Andrew G Hill Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Chamaidi Sarakatsianou; Konstantinos Perivoliotis; George Tzovaras; Athina A Samara; Ioannis Baloyiannis Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155