Randomized controlled study of intraincisional infiltration versus intraperitoneal instillation of standardized dose of ropivacaine 0.2% in post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain: Do we really need high doses of local anesthetics—time to rethink!

Randomized controlled study of intraincisional infiltration versus intraperitoneal instillation... Background Earlier studies done to compare the ec ffi acy of use of local anesthetics at intraperitoneal location versus intrain - cisional use had utilized equal amount of drugs at the two locations, usually 10–20 ml. Using this large amount of drug in the small space of intraincisional location as compared to similar amount of drug in large intraperitoneal space created an inadvertent bias in favor of patients receiving the drug intraincisionally so these patients naturally experienced less pain. Aims and objectives To conduct a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study by standardizing dose of local anes- thetic, to compare the effectiveness of intraperitoneal against intraincisional use of ropivacaine 0.2% for post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain relief. Materials and methods 294 patients underwent elective 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were triple blindly randomized. All patients received ~ 23 ml of solution, of which 20 ml was given intraperitoneally (1 ml/cm; 16 ml along right hemi-dome and 4 ml in gall bladder fossa) and ~ 3 ml intraincisionally (1 ml/cm of length of incision). Solution was either normal saline or drug (0.2% ropivacaine) depending on the group [controls (n = 86), intraperitoneal group (n = 100), and intraincisional group (n = 108)]. 5 different pain scales were used for assessment of overall pain. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Surgical Endoscopy Springer Journals

Randomized controlled study of intraincisional infiltration versus intraperitoneal instillation of standardized dose of ropivacaine 0.2% in post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain: Do we really need high doses of local anesthetics—time to rethink!

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/randomized-controlled-study-of-intraincisional-infiltration-versus-LntV02x4OV
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Surgery; Gynecology; Gastroenterology; Hepatology; Proctology; Abdominal Surgery
ISSN
0930-2794
eISSN
1432-2218
D.O.I.
10.1007/s00464-018-6053-z
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background Earlier studies done to compare the ec ffi acy of use of local anesthetics at intraperitoneal location versus intrain - cisional use had utilized equal amount of drugs at the two locations, usually 10–20 ml. Using this large amount of drug in the small space of intraincisional location as compared to similar amount of drug in large intraperitoneal space created an inadvertent bias in favor of patients receiving the drug intraincisionally so these patients naturally experienced less pain. Aims and objectives To conduct a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled study by standardizing dose of local anes- thetic, to compare the effectiveness of intraperitoneal against intraincisional use of ropivacaine 0.2% for post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy pain relief. Materials and methods 294 patients underwent elective 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were triple blindly randomized. All patients received ~ 23 ml of solution, of which 20 ml was given intraperitoneally (1 ml/cm; 16 ml along right hemi-dome and 4 ml in gall bladder fossa) and ~ 3 ml intraincisionally (1 ml/cm of length of incision). Solution was either normal saline or drug (0.2% ropivacaine) depending on the group [controls (n = 86), intraperitoneal group (n = 100), and intraincisional group (n = 108)]. 5 different pain scales were used for assessment of overall pain.

Journal

Surgical EndoscopySpringer Journals

Published: Jan 16, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off