Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1886–1894 | Cite as

Postoperative pain after transvaginal cholecystectomy: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

  • Dietmar H. Borchert
  • Matthias Federlein
  • Frauke Fritze-Büttner
  • Jens Burghardt
  • Britta Liersch-Löhn
  • Yüksel Atas
  • Verena Müller
  • Oskar Rückbeil
  • Stefan Wagenpfeil
  • Stefan Gräber
  • Klaus Gellert
Article

Abstract

Background

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has the potential to reduce postoperative pain. We compared postoperative pain in the hybrid NOTES procedure transvaginal video-assisted cholecystectomy (TVC) with standard conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Design

Single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in a level II hospital between June 2008 and June 2012.

Methods

Female patients, older than 18 years of age with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis were randomized to receive either TVC or CLC. The follow-up period was 7 days and the primary outcome of the study was postoperative pain. We hypothesized that there is no reduction of pain (Visual Rating Scale ≥1) while resting or coughing over a 48-h period after the operation. Secondary outcome included wound infections, complications, and patient reported outcomes. Sealed envelopes with computer-generated randomization information were kept for allocation in theater. All patients received opaque wound dressing, as in standard four-trocar cholecystectomy and a vaginal tamponade. Theater protocol and surgical notes were kept separate after the procedure.

Results

Overall, 97 of 426 patients assessed for participation were randomized for either TVC or CLC. A total of 41 patients had a TVC and 51 had a CLC. Five patients were excluded from the analysis. There was no difference in age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, or hospital stay, but anesthetic and surgical times were significantly longer in TVC (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in postoperative pain between the two groups while resting or coughing. Complications included conversion to laparotomy, bleeding, wound infections, and re-admission. No difference in the rate of complications between the two groups was seen. Overall, 86 and 93 % of CLC and TVC patients, respectively, would recommend the procedure to other patients.

Conclusion

In this study, no significant difference in pain on days 1 and 2 postoperatively between the two methods was found. The safety profile of TVC is comparable to CLC, and TVC patients would generally recommend this procedure to other patients.

Keywords

Cholecystectomy NOTES Endoscopy Quality of life SF-36 GIQoL 

Notes

Disclosures

Dietmar H. Borchert, Matthias Federlein, Frauke Fritze-Büttner, Jens Burghardt, Britta Liersch-Löhn, Yüksel Atas, Verena Müller, Oskar Rückbeil, Stefan Wagenpfeil, Stefan Gräber, and Klaus Gellert have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical standard

Charité Ethics Committee approval was received on 16 April 2008 (no. EA1/035/08); the trial started on 2 June 2008 and ended on 11 June 2012; International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) application was made on 10 October 2008, and an ISRCTN number was assigned on 30 December 2008 (no. 14307590).

Funding

Equipment used in the study was partially sponsored by Olympus Inc. No other funding was received, although this was a hospital-sponsored trial.

References

  1. 1.
    Hucl T, Saglova A, Benes M, Kocik M, Oliverius M, Valenta Z et al (2012) Patient and physician perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic appendectomy. World J Gastroenterol 18(15):1800–1805PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER (2008) Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 67(6):854–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noguera JF, Cuadrado A, Dolz C, Olea JM, Garcia JC (2012) Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) (NCT00835250). Surg Endosc 26(12):3435–3441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulian DR, Knuth J, Cerasani N, Sauerwald A, Lefering R, Heiss MM (2013) Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid-NOTES-versus 3-trocar needlescopic cholecystectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000218
  5. 5.
    Hensel M, Schernikau U, Schmidt A, Arlt G (2012) Comparison between transvaginal and laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a retrospective case–control study. Zentralbl Chir 137(1):48–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kilian M, Raue W, Menenakos C, Wassersleben B, Hartmann J (2011) Transvaginal-hybrid vs. single-port-access vs. ‘conventional’ laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective observational study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396(5):709–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borchert D, Federlein M, Ruckbeil O, Burghardt J, Fritze F, Gellert K (2012) Prospective evaluation of transvaginal assisted cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 26(12):3597–3604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Federlein M, Borchert D, Muller V, Atas Y, Fritze F, Burghardt J et al (2010) Transvaginal video-assisted cholecystectomy in clinical practice. Surg Endosc 24(10):2444–2452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ et al (1996) Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 347(9007):989–994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ros A, Gustafsson L, Krook H, Nordgren CE, Thorell A, Wallin G et al (2001) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Ann Surg 234(6):741–749PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bullinger M (1995) German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Soc Sci Med 41(10):1359–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ure BM, Schmulling C, Neugebauer E et al (1995) Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 82(2):216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zornig C, Mofid H, Siemssen L, Emmermann A, Alm M, von Waldenfels HA et al (2009) Transvaginal NOTES hybrid cholecystectomy: feasibility results in 68 cases with mid-term follow-up. Endoscopy 41(5):391–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Solomon D, Shariff AH, Silasi DA, Duffy AJ, Bell RL, Roberts KE (2012) Transvaginal cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 26(10):2823–2827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barkun JS, Barkun AN, Sampalis JS, Fried G, Taylor B, Wexler MJ et al (1992) Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group. Lancet 340(8828):1116–1119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCloy R, Randall D, Schug SA, Kehlet H, Simanski C, Bonnet F et al (2008) Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes. Surg Endosc 22(12):2541–2553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Rosenberg J (2001) Pain and convalescence after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg 167(2):84–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sajid MS, Khan MA, Ray K, Cheek E, Baig MK (2009) Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 79(6):437–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Todd KH (1996) Clinical versus statistical significance in the assessment of pain relief. Ann Emerg Med 27(4):439–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van den Boezem PB, Velthuis S, Lourens HJ, Samlal RA, Cuesta MA, Sietses C (2013) Hybrid transvaginal cholecystectomy, clinical results and patient-reported outcomes of 50 consecutive cases. J Gastrointest Surg 17(5):907–912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wood SG, Panait L, Duffy AJ, Bell RL, Roberts KE (2013) Complications of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a series of 102 patients. Ann Surg. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182916138
  24. 24.
    Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, DeNoto G et al (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 216(6):1037–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Enochsson L, Thulin A, Osterberg J, Sandblom G, Persson G (2013) The Swedish Registry of Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks): a nationwide registry for quality assurance of gallstone surgery. JAMA Surg 148(5):471–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mantha S, Thisted R, Foss J, Ellis JE, Roizen MF (1993) A proposal to use confidence intervals for visual analog scale data for pain measurement to determine clinical significance. Anesth Analg 77(5):1041–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dietmar H. Borchert
    • 1
  • Matthias Federlein
    • 2
  • Frauke Fritze-Büttner
    • 2
  • Jens Burghardt
    • 3
  • Britta Liersch-Löhn
    • 2
  • Yüksel Atas
    • 2
  • Verena Müller
    • 4
  • Oskar Rückbeil
    • 2
  • Stefan Wagenpfeil
    • 1
  • Stefan Gräber
    • 1
  • Klaus Gellert
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Pediatric Surgery, and Institute of Biometry, Epidemiology and Medical InformaticsSaarland University HospitalsHomburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of General and Visceral SurgerySana Hospital Lichtenberg, Sana Hospitals Berlin-Brandenburg, Affiliated Teaching Hospital to the CharitéBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryImmanuel Hospital RüdersdorfRüdersdorfGermany
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Charité University MedicineHumboldt University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations