Abstract
Background
Preperitoneal catheter analgesia following abdominal surgery has attracted interest in the last decade. We conducted this study to evaluate the benefits of preperitoneal catheter analgesia in managing pain after abdominal colon and rectal resections.
Methods
A total of 50 patients undergoing colon and rectal resections for benign and malignant diseases received analgesic medicines via an epidural catheter placed just prior to surgery and a preperitoneal catheter placed at the end of the surgical procedure. Patients were instructed to use the epidural patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device freely and were randomized into two groups after obtaining the approval of the Institutional Review Board: Group A received 10 ml of levobupivacaine twice a day postoperatively via preperitoneal catheter and group B received only 10 ml of saline. Demographics, surgical characteristics, pain scores recorded four days following surgery, analgesic volume used from the epidural PCA, clinical outcomes (length of stay, time to first bowel movement, time to first passage of gas or stool, time to first oral intake) and respiratory function test results (preoperative vs. postoperative) were compared.
Results
There were no significant differences in demographics or surgical characteristics between both groups. Pain scores were similar. Clinical outcomes and respiratory functions were comparable. The use of analgesic volume via epidural catheter was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P = 0.032).
Conclusions
Preperitoneal catheter analgesia significantly decreased the need for epidural drug consumption and proved to be a beneficial adjunct for postoperative pain management of patients who underwent colon and rectal resections.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kirdak T, Yilmazlar A, Cavun S, Ercan I, Yilmazlar T (2008) Does single, low-dose preoperative dexamethasone improve outcomes after colorectal surgery based on an enhanced recovery protocol? Double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Am Surg 74:160–167
Liu SS, Richman JM, Thirlby RC, Wu CL (2006) Efficacy of continuous wound catheters delivering local anesthetic for postoperative analgesia: a quantitative and qualitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Surg 203:914–932
Perkins FM, Kehlet H (2000) Chronic pain as an outcome of surgery. A review of predictive factors. Anesthesiology 93:1123–1133
Karthikesalingam A, Walsh SR, Markar SR, Sadat U, Tang TY, Malata CM (2008) Continuous wound infusion of local anesthetic agents following colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 14:5301–5305
Dahl J, Moiniche S, Kehlet H (1994) Wound infiltration with local anesthetics for postoperative pain. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 38:7–14
PROSPECT working group (2008) Procedure specific postoperative pain management: open colonic resection. Available from: http://www.postoppain.org/frameset.htm. Accessed 28th Jan 2008
Baig MK, Zmora O, Derdemezi J, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD (2006) Use of the ON-Q pain management system is associated with decreased postoperative analgesic requirement: double blind randomized placebo pilot study. J Am Coll Surg 202:297–305
Beaussier M, El’Ayoubi H, Schiffer E et al (2007) Continuous preperitoneal infusion of ropivacaine provides effective analgesia and ameliorates recovery after colorectal surgery: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology 107:461–468
Cheong WK, Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Tang CL, Heah SM (2001) Randomized clinical trial of local bupivacaine perfusion versus parenteral morphine infusion for pain relief after laparotomy. Br J Surg 88:357–359
Fredman B, Zohar E, Tarabykin A (2001) Bupivacaine wound instillation via an electronic patient-controlled analgesia device and a double catheter system does not decrease postoperative pain or opioid requirements after major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 92:189–193
Polglase AL, McMurrick PJ, Simpson PJ (2007) Continuous wound infusion of local anesthetic for the control of pain after elective abdominal colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 50:2158–2167
Chester JF, Ravindranath K, White BD et al (1989) Wound perfusion with bupivacaine: objective evidence for efficacy in postoperative pain relief. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 71:394–396
Levack ID, Holmes JD, Robertson GS (1986) Abdominal wound perfusion for the relief of postoperative pain. Br J Anaesth 58:615–619
Gupta A, Perniola A, Axelsson K et al (2004) Postoperative pain after abdominal hysterectomy: a double-blind comparison between placebo and local anesthetic infused intraperitoneally. Anesth Analg 99:1173–1179
Kristensen BB, Chistensen DS, Ostergaard M et al (1999) Lack of postoperative pain relief after hysterectomy using preperitoneally administered bupivacaine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 24:576–580
Society American Thoracic (1987) Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 136:225–243
Cornish P, Deacon A (2007) Rectus sheath catheters for continuous analgesia after upper abdominal surgery. ANZ J Surg 77:84
Badia JM, Whawell SA, Scott-Coombes DM, Abel PD, Williamson RC, Thompson JN (1996) Peritoneal and systemic cytokine response to laparotomy. Br J Surg 83:347–348
Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Soop M, Hill AG (2010) Peritoneal damage: the inflammatory response and clinical implications of the neuro-immuno-humoral axis. World J Surg 34:704–720
Acknowledgments
We thank our research nurse Sonca Erdem for her dedicated work during this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ozturk, E., Yilmazlar, A., Coskun, F. et al. The beneficial effects of preperitoneal catheter analgesia following colon and rectal resections: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Tech Coloproctol 15, 331–336 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-011-0720-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-011-0720-6