Different maneuvers for reducing postlaparoscopic shoulder and abdominal pain: a randomized controlled trial

R. Wahdan, Shereen E. Abd Ellatif
{"title":"Different maneuvers for reducing postlaparoscopic shoulder and abdominal pain: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"R. Wahdan, Shereen E. Abd Ellatif","doi":"10.4103/roaic.roaic_67_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The aim was to evaluate the effect of combination of recruitment maneuver (RM) or intraperitoneal saline infusion (IPS) to low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in reducing postlaparoscopic shoulder and abdominal pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries. Patients and methods This prospective blinded randomized controlled study was conducted on 108 patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to four groups: group C (control group) patients received standard pressure pneumoperitoneum, group L received low-pressure pneumoperitoneum, group LR received low-pressure pneumoperitoneum and intermittent five times RM at a pressure of 40 cmH2O, and group LS received low-pressure pneumoperitoneum and IPS (15–20 ml/kg). Primary outcome was visual analog scale score for shoulder pain and abdominal pain at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h postoperatively. Results The visual analog scale values of shoulder pain and abdominal pain were statistically significantly higher in the control group at different timings postoperatively compared with the interventional groups. Moreover, the LR group had the lowest statistically significant values at all different timings except at 2, 48, 72, and 96 h, where it had no significant difference with the LS group regarding shoulder pain. However, regarding abdominal pain values, the LS group had the lowest statistically significant values at 72 and 96 h postoperatively. Conclusion Adding of RM or IPS to low-pressure insufflation could significantly decrease the intensity of postlaparoscopic shoulder and abdominal pain. However, RM seems to be more effective but it is a relatively short-acting maneuver, whereas IPS seems to be less effective but it has a longer lasting effect.","PeriodicalId":151256,"journal":{"name":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/roaic.roaic_67_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The aim was to evaluate the effect of combination of recruitment maneuver (RM) or intraperitoneal saline infusion (IPS) to low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in reducing postlaparoscopic shoulder and abdominal pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries. Patients and methods This prospective blinded randomized controlled study was conducted on 108 patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to four groups: group C (control group) patients received standard pressure pneumoperitoneum, group L received low-pressure pneumoperitoneum, group LR received low-pressure pneumoperitoneum and intermittent five times RM at a pressure of 40 cmH2O, and group LS received low-pressure pneumoperitoneum and IPS (15–20 ml/kg). Primary outcome was visual analog scale score for shoulder pain and abdominal pain at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h postoperatively. Results The visual analog scale values of shoulder pain and abdominal pain were statistically significantly higher in the control group at different timings postoperatively compared with the interventional groups. Moreover, the LR group had the lowest statistically significant values at all different timings except at 2, 48, 72, and 96 h, where it had no significant difference with the LS group regarding shoulder pain. However, regarding abdominal pain values, the LS group had the lowest statistically significant values at 72 and 96 h postoperatively. Conclusion Adding of RM or IPS to low-pressure insufflation could significantly decrease the intensity of postlaparoscopic shoulder and abdominal pain. However, RM seems to be more effective but it is a relatively short-acting maneuver, whereas IPS seems to be less effective but it has a longer lasting effect.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
减轻腹腔镜后肩部和腹部疼痛的不同手法:一项随机对照试验
目的探讨低压气腹联合引流术(RM)或腹腔内生理盐水输注(IPS)对减轻腹腔镜妇科手术患者腹腔镜后肩腹痛的效果。患者与方法对108例腹腔镜妇科手术患者进行前瞻性盲法随机对照研究。将患者随机分为4组:C组(对照组)患者接受标准压力气腹,L组患者接受低压气腹,LR组患者接受低压气腹和间歇5次RM,压力为40 cmH2O, LS组患者接受低压气腹和IPS (15-20 ml/kg)。主要结局是术后2、6、12、24、48、72和96小时肩痛和腹痛的视觉模拟评分。结果对照组术后不同时间肩部疼痛和腹部疼痛视觉模拟量表值均高于干预组,差异有统计学意义。此外,除了2、48、72和96小时外,LR组在所有不同时间点的肩部疼痛值均具有最低的统计学意义,其中LR组与LS组在肩部疼痛方面无显著差异。然而,在腹痛值方面,LS组在术后72和96 h具有最低的统计学意义。结论在低压灌注中加入RM或IPS可明显减轻腹腔镜后肩痛和腹痛的强度。然而,RM似乎更有效,但它是一个相对短期的操作,而IPS似乎不太有效,但它有一个更持久的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of combined pulsed radiofrequency and steroid injection to the dorsal root ganglion in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: a prospective randomized clinical trial Sacrococcygeal local anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for pilonidal sinus surgery: a prospective randomized controlled study Role of enteral metoprolol tartrate on hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of septic shock patients of various pretargeted heart rate groups Prediction of protective lung tidal volume using the ulna length in Egyptian adults Characteristics and clinical outcomes of critically ill pregnant patients with COVID-19 disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1