Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 1;275(1):e30-e36.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004758.

Intravenous Local Anesthetic Compared With Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic in Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations

Intravenous Local Anesthetic Compared With Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic in Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Wiremu S MacFater et al. Ann Surg. .

Abstract

Introduction: Controlling perioperative pain is essential to improving patient experience and satisfaction following surgery. Traditionally opioids have been frequently utilized for postoperative analgesia. Although they are effective at controlling pain, they are associated with adverse effects, including postoperative nausea, vomiting, ileus, and long-term opioid dependency.Following laparoscopic colectomy, the use of intravenous or intraperitoneal infusions of lidocaine (IVL, IPL) are promising emerging analgesic options. Although both techniques are promising, there have been no direct, prospective randomized comparisons in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection. The purpose of this study was to compare IPL with IVL.

Methods: Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection. The 2 groups received equal doses of either IPL or IVL which commenced intra-operatively with a bolus followed by a continuous infusion for 3 days postoperatively. Patients were cared for through a standardized enhanced recovery after surgery program. The primary outcome was total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 3 postoperative days. Patients were followed for 60 days.

Results: Fifty-six patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the IVL or IPL groups. Total opioid consumption over the first 3 postoperative days was significantly lower in the IPL group (70.9 mg vs 157.8 mg P < 0.05) and overall opioid consumption during the total length of stay was also significantly lower (80.3 mg vs 187.36 mg P < 0.05. Pain scores were significantly lower at 2 hours postoperatively in the IPL group, however, all other time points were not significant. There were no differences in complications between the 2 groups.

Conclusion: Perioperative use of IPL results in a significant reduction in opioid consumption following laparoscopic colon surgery when compared to IVL. This suggests that the peritoneal cavity/compartment is a strategic target for local anesthetic administration. Future enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations should consider IPL as an important component of a multimodal pain strategy following colectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Yap R, Nassif G, Hwang G, et al. Achieving opioid-free major colorectal surgery: is it possible? Dig Surg 2020; 37:376–382.
    1. Boulind CE, Ewings P, Bulley SH, et al. Feasibility study of analgesia via epidural versus continuous wound infusion after laparoscopic colorectal resection. Br J Surg 2013; 100:395–402.
    1. Kehlet H. Postoperative ileus--an update on preventive techniques. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 5:552–558.
    1. Allan LD, Coyne C, Byrnes CM, et al. Tackling the opioid epidemic: reducing opioid prescribing while maintaining patient satisfaction with pain management after outpatient surgery. Am J Surg 2020; 220:1108–1114.
    1. Turi S, Gemma M, Braga M, et al. Epidural analgesia vs systemic opioids in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019; 34:915–921.

MeSH terms