Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 123–130 | Cite as

Randomized double-blind trial of short- versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament

  • Katie PropstEmail author
  • David M. O’Sullivan
  • Adam C. Steinberg
Original Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Pain control is a key component of postoperative care; our objective was to evaluate if use of long-acting local anesthesia at the sacrospinous ligament leads to decreased postoperative pain versus short-acting local anesthesia in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament fixation.

Methods

Women ≥ 18 years old undergoing sacrospinous ligament fixation to treat pelvic organ prolapse were eligible to participate in this randomized trial. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 to one of two study arms: (1) lidocaine arm (LA) or (2) liposomal bupivacaine arm (LBA). Patients in the LA received 30 ml 0.5% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine local injection at the sacrospinous ligament. Patients in the LBA received 20 ml 1.3% bupivacaine liposomal mixed with 10 ml 0.5% bupivacaine at the sacrospinous ligament. All patients received 50 ml 0.5% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for anterior and/or posterior colporrhaphy. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative buttock pain.

Results

Of the 37 patients enrolled, 33 completed study procedures. Mean age (± SD) was 62.3 years (± 11.6) in the LA and 66.8 years (± 14.4) in the LBA (p = 0.32). All participants underwent sacrospinous ligament fixation; the rate of concomitant procedures did not differ between study arms. Visual analog scale scores for buttock-specific pain were compared between arms at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h postoperatively, and no differences were found.

Conclusions

Use of long-acting local analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament at the time of sacrospinous ligament fixation does not provide any benefit over short-acting local analgesia.

Keywords

Pain, postoperative Anesthesia, local Pelvic organ prolapse Bupivacaine, lidocaine, gynecologic surgical procedures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alison Champagne; Allison Forrest, RN; Christine Hart, RN; Carol Koehler, RN; Michele Murdza, RN; and Kathleen Morris, RN, for their assistance in recruitment, enrollment, and data collection.

Funding

This project was funded by a research grant from the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Adam C. Steinberg has received honoraria from Boston Scientific for speaking and educational activities. He also has received honoraria from Johnson and Johnson and Trevena for consultation.

All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78(5):606–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kalogera E, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Jankowski CJ, et al. Enhanced recovery in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2 Pt 1):319–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapman JS, Roddy E, Ueda S, Brooks R, Chen L, Chen L. Enhanced recovery pathways for improving outcomes after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):138–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steinberg AC, Schimpf MO, White AB, et al. Preemptive analgesia for postoperative hysterectomy pain control: systematic review and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):303–313.e6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Facing addiction in America. https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/. Accessed 5 Sept 2017.
  6. 6.
    Hristovska AM, Kristensen BB, Rasmussen MA, et al. Effect of systematic local infiltration analgesia on postoperative pain in vaginal hysterectomy: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(3):233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kristensen BB, Rasmussen YH, Agerlin M, Topp MW, Weincke MO, Kehlet H. Local infiltration analgesia in urogenital prolapse surgery: a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(10):1121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tommaselli GA, Di Carlo C, Formisano C, Fabozzi A, Nappi C. Effect of local infiltration analgesia on post-operative pain following TVT-O: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(2):283–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haas E, Onel E, Miller H, Ragupathi M, White P. A double-blind, randomized, active-controlled study for post-hemorrhoidectomy pain management with liposome bupivacaine , a novel local analgesic formulation. Am Surg. 2012;78(5):574–81.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gorfine S, Onel E, Patou G, Krivokapic Z. Bupivacaine extended-release liposome injection for prolonged postsurgical analgesia in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blined, placebo-controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(12):1552–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yeung J, Crisp CC, Mazloomdoost D, Kleeman SD, Pauls RN. Liposomal bupivacaine during robotic colpopexy and posterior repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):39–46.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(5):1063–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reagan KML, O’Sullivan DM, Gannon R, Steinberg AC. Decreasing postoperative narcotics in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):325.e1–325.e10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barber MD, Janz N, Kenton K, et al. Validation of the surgical pain scales in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(4):198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rasor J, Harris G. Opioid use for moderate to severe pain. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2005;105:S2–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Unger C, Walters MD. A randomized double-blind placebo-congrolled trial on the effect of local analgesia on postoperative gluteal pain in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament colpopexy. In: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Vol 22. ; 2016:S1-S33.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mazloomdoost D, Pauls R, Hennen E, et al. Liposomal bupivacaine decreases pain following retropubic sling placement: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obs Gynecol. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Women’s HealthHartford HospitalHartfordUSA
  2. 2.Research AdministrationHartford HospitalHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations