World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 1432–1436 | Cite as

Intraperitoneal pethidine versus Intramuscular pethidine for the relief of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Randomized trial

  • Deirdre M. O’Hanlon
  • Sallyann Colbert
  • Jackie Ragheb
  • Gerry P. McEntee
  • Frank Chambers
  • D. C. Moriarty
Original Scientific Reports

Abstract

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is widely used and may be performed as an ambulatory procedure. We undertook a randomized comparison of the benefits of intraperitoneal pethidine compared with intramuscular pethidine for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A series of 100 consecutive American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I or II patients were randomly assigned to intramuscular pethidine (54 patients) or intraperitoneal pethidine (46 patients). Each was combined with intraperitoneal bupivacaine. The primary end-points were the pain and nausea scores at intervals after operation. All recruited patients completed the study. Pain scores at rest and upon movement were significantly lower in the group receiving the intraperitoneal pethidine at each of the time periods examined (pain at rest at 4 hours: 1.6±0.8 vs. 2.4±0.9 cm; p<0.001; pain upon movement at 4 hours: 2.1±0.9 vs. 3.1±1.2 cm; p<0.001). The total dose of pethidine administered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) during the first 24 hours after surgery was also significantly lower in this group (total dose 50.9±3.9 vs. 55.9±4.4 mg; p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the respiratory rate at any of the time periods. Intraperitoneal pethidine analgesia was superior to an equivalent dose of intramuscular pethidine for the relief of postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This was achieved at the expense of increased nausea but no significant increase in vomiting. The accessibility of this route of analgesia administration has implications for patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures, particularly with the recent trend toward increased use of ambulatory techniques.

Résumé

La cholécystectomie laparoscopique est réalisée dans le monde entier et peut être réalisée en ambulatoire. Nous avons comparé par une étude randomisée les bénéfices de la pethidine en intraperitoneal comparée à la pethidine en intramusculaire pour l’analgésie postcholecystectomic laparoscopique. Cent patients consécutifs, ASA I ou II, ont été randomisés pour recevoir soit de la pethidine en intra-musculaire (54 patients) ou en intrapéritonéale (46 patients). De la bupivacaïne a été administrée en intrapéritonéale chez tous les patients. Les critères de jugement principaux et secondaires ont été les scores de la douleur et de la nausée à des intervalles successifs post-opératoires. Tous les patients inclus ont complété l’étude. La douleur au repos et lors des mouvements a été significativement moindre dans le groupe recevant de la pethidine en intrapéritonéale à chaque intervalle étudié [douleur au repos à 4 heures: 1.6 (0.8) cm vs. 2.4 (0.9) cm; p=0.001; douleur lors des mouvements à 4 heures: 2.1 (0.9) cm vs. 3.1 (1.2) cm; p=0.001]. La dose totale de pethidine administrée via la PCA pendant les 24 premières heures après chirurgie a également été plus basse dans ce groupe [dose totale 50.9 (3.9) mg vs. 55.9 (4.4) mg; p=0.001]. Il n’y avait aucune différence statistiquement significative en ce qui concernait la fréquence respiratoire quel que soit le moment de l’étude. La pethidine en intrapéritonéale est supérieure à la pethidine en intramusculaire pour l’analgésie de la douleur post-cholécystectomie laparoscopique. Cette amélioration a été accomplie au prix de plus de nausées mais sans augmentation significative des vomissements. L’utilisation de cette route d’administration a des implications importantes chez le patient opéré sous laparoscopic, en particulier, vu la tendance actuelle à élargir les indications de la chirurgie ambulatoire.

Resumen

La colecistectomía laparoscópica es el procedimiento más empleado en cirugía ambulatoria. Efectuamos un estudio comparative aleatorio sobre los efectos, de la petidina intraperitoneal vs intramuscular, en la analgesia postcolecistectomía laparoscópica. 100 pacientes ASA I o II fueron aleatoriamente distribuidos en 2 grupos: petidina intramuscular (n=54) y petidina intraperitoneal (n=46); a este último grupo se le asoció bupivacaina intraperitoneal. Se investigaron el dolor y las nauseas durante el postoperatorio. Todos los pacientes completaron el estudio. El dolor postoperatorio tanto en reposo como con la movilización fue significativamente menor en el grupo de petidina intraperitoneal [dolor en reposo a las 4 horas 1.6 (0.8) cm vs 2.4 (0.9) cm; p<0.001; dolor a la movilización a las 4 horas 2.1 (0.9) cm vs 3.1 (1.2) cm; p<0.001]. Además, en este grupo la dosis total de petidina administrada en las primeras 24 horas del periodo postoperatorio fue menor [dosis total 50.9 (3.9) mg vs 55.9 (4.4) mg, p<0.001]. No se observaron diferencias significativas en la frecuencia respiratoria a lo largo del periodo postoperatorio. La analgesia proporcionada por la administración intraperitoneal de petidina es superior a la obtenida por inyección intramuscular, aunque se produzcan más nauseas pero sin que se incremente la frecuencia de vómitos. Dada la accesibilidad de esta vía para la administración de analgésicos este proceder debe tenerse muy en cuenta en las técnicas laparoscópicas, especialmente si se quiere incrementar la realización de las mismas de manera ambulatoria.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barkun JS, Barkun AN, Sampalis JS, et al. Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini-cholecystectomy: a national survey of 4292 hospitals and an analysis of 77604 cases. Lancet 1992;340:1116–1119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, et al. Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial comparing postoperative pain and pulmonary function. Surgery 1994;115:533–539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Joris J, Thiry E, Paris P, et al. Pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: characteristics and effect of intraperitoneal bupivacaine. Anesth. Analg. 1995;81:379–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ure BM, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, et al. Pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: intensity and localization of pain and analysis of predictors in preoperative symptoms and intraoperative events. Surg. Endosc. 1994;8:90–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schoeffler P, Diemunsch P, Fourgeaud L. Coelioscopie ambulatoire. Cahiers Anesthesiol. 1993;41:385–391Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson SA, Laurence AH, Hill JC. Does post laparoscopy. pain relate to residual carbon dioxide? Anaesthesia 1996;51:485–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Squirrell DM, Majeed AW, Troy G, et al. A randomized, prospective, blinded comparison of postoperative pain, metabolic response, and perceived health after laparoscopic and small incision cholecvstectomy. Surgery 1998;123:485–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Narchi P, Benhamou D, Fernandez H. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for shoulder pain after day case laparoscopy. Lancet 1991;338:1569–1570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zmora O, Stolik-Dollberg O, Bar-Zakai B, et al. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine does not attenuate pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J.S.L.S. 2000;4:301–304Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rademaker BPM, Kalkman CJ, Odoom JA, et al. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetics after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: effects on postoperative pain, metabolic responses and lung function. Br. J. Anaesth. 1994;72:263–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chundrigar T, Hedges AR, Morris R, et al. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine for effective pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 1993;75:437–439PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scheinin B, Kellokumpu L, Lindgren L, et al. Effect of intraperitoneal bupivacaine on pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta. Anaesth. Scand. 1995;39:195–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Covino BG. Clinical pharmacology of local anaesthetic agents. In Cousins MJ, Bridenbaugh PO, editors, Neural Blockade in Clinical Anaesthesia and Management of Pain, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1988:111–144Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Power I, Brown DT, Wildsmith JAW. The effect of fentanyl, meperidine and diamorphine on nerve conduction in vitro. Reg. Anesth. 1991;16:204–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Armstrong PJ, Morton CPJ, Nimmo AF. Pethidine has a local anaesthetic action on peripheral nerves in vivo. Anaesthesia 1993;48:382–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Famewo CE, Naguib M. Spinal analgesia with meperidine as the sole agent. Can. J. Anaesth. 1985;32:533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Acalovschi I, Ene V, Lorinczi E, et al. Saddle block with pethidine for perineal operations. Br. J. Anaesth. 1986;58:1012–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sangarlangkarn S, Klaewtanong V, Jonglerttrakool P, et al. Meperidine as a spinal anesthetic agent: a comparison with lignocaine-glucose. Anesth. Analg. 1987;66:235–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gobeaux D, Landais A. Utilisation des deux morphiniques dans les blocs bu plexus brachial. Cahiers Anesthesiol. 1988;36:437–440Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stambaugh JE, Wainer IW, Stanstead JK, et al. The clinical pharmacology of meperidine: comparison of routes of administration. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1976;16:245–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lam D, Miranda R, Hom SJ. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an outpatient procedure. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 1997;185:152–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keulemans Y, Eshuis J, de Haes H, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: day-care versus clinical observation. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:734–740PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mjaland O, Raeder J, Aasboe V, et al. Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br. J. Surg. 1997;84:958–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tuckey JP, Morris GN, Peden CJ, et al. Feasibility of day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy in unselected patients. Anaesthesia 1996;51:965–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michaloliakou C, Chung F, Sharma S. Preoperative multimodal analgesia facilitates recovery after ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anesth Analg 1996;82:44–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prasad A, Foley RJ. Day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a safe and cost effective procedure. Eur. J. Surg. 1996;162:43–46PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deirdre M. O’Hanlon
    • 1
  • Sallyann Colbert
    • 2
  • Jackie Ragheb
    • 2
  • Gerry P. McEntee
    • 1
  • Frank Chambers
    • 2
  • D. C. Moriarty
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMater Misericordiae HospitalDublin 7Ireland
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyMater Misericordiae HospitalDublin 7Ireland

Personalised recommendations