Does Local Infiltration of Anesthesia Reduce Port-site Pain in Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgeries? A Pilot Study.

IF 1.4 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT Pub Date : 2023-12-07 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.4103/gmit.gmit_77_22
Roopa Malik, Renu Verma
{"title":"Does Local Infiltration of Anesthesia Reduce Port-site Pain in Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgeries? A Pilot Study.","authors":"Roopa Malik, Renu Verma","doi":"10.4103/gmit.gmit_77_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this study were to evaluate the visual analog scale (VAS) score in patients receiving port-site bupivacaine infiltration in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries and to compare it with those receiving placebo and to evaluate the additional analgesic requirement in the first 24 h after surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A prospective interventional study was conducted on 60 women scheduled for benign gynecological laparoscopic surgeries. Patients were randomized into two groups using an alternative sequential method of allocation. Approval from the Institute's Ethics Committee was sought. Informed written consent was taken from all the patients. All laparoscopic surgeries were performed under general anesthesia. Double-blinding was done. A VAS with a 10 cm vertical score ranging from \"no pain\" to \"worst possible pain\" was used to assess the postoperative pain when the patient awakened in the operating room (2 h after surgery), then after 6 and 24 h. The primary outcome measured was pain perception by the patient (as VAS scores), and the secondary outcome was the need for additional analgesia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparison of both groups with the VAS score shows <i>P</i> > 0.001, i.e., nonsignificant in all the groups. Additional analgesics were required in 56% of the patients in the intervention group and 60% of the patients in the control group; however, 44% and 40% of the patients from the intervention and control groups, respectively, do not require any additional analgesic in the postoperative period.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The local infiltration of bupivacaine does not significantly reduce the port-site postoperative pain in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries.</p>","PeriodicalId":45272,"journal":{"name":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","volume":"13 2","pages":"101-104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11192289/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.gmit_77_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the visual analog scale (VAS) score in patients receiving port-site bupivacaine infiltration in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries and to compare it with those receiving placebo and to evaluate the additional analgesic requirement in the first 24 h after surgery.

Materials and methods: A prospective interventional study was conducted on 60 women scheduled for benign gynecological laparoscopic surgeries. Patients were randomized into two groups using an alternative sequential method of allocation. Approval from the Institute's Ethics Committee was sought. Informed written consent was taken from all the patients. All laparoscopic surgeries were performed under general anesthesia. Double-blinding was done. A VAS with a 10 cm vertical score ranging from "no pain" to "worst possible pain" was used to assess the postoperative pain when the patient awakened in the operating room (2 h after surgery), then after 6 and 24 h. The primary outcome measured was pain perception by the patient (as VAS scores), and the secondary outcome was the need for additional analgesia.

Results: Comparison of both groups with the VAS score shows P > 0.001, i.e., nonsignificant in all the groups. Additional analgesics were required in 56% of the patients in the intervention group and 60% of the patients in the control group; however, 44% and 40% of the patients from the intervention and control groups, respectively, do not require any additional analgesic in the postoperative period.

Conclusion: The local infiltration of bupivacaine does not significantly reduce the port-site postoperative pain in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries.

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
局部浸润麻醉是否能减轻妇科腹腔镜手术的手术孔疼痛?一项试点研究。
研究目的本研究旨在评估妇科腹腔镜手术中接受端口部位布比卡因浸润的患者的视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,并与接受安慰剂的患者进行比较,同时评估术后 24 小时内的额外镇痛需求:一项前瞻性干预研究针对60名计划接受良性妇科腹腔镜手术的女性进行。采用替代顺序分配法将患者随机分为两组。研究获得了研究所伦理委员会的批准。所有患者均已获得知情书面同意。所有腹腔镜手术均在全身麻醉下进行。采用双盲法。当患者在手术室醒来时(术后 2 小时),然后在术后 6 小时和 24 小时后,使用垂直分值为 10 厘米的 VAS 评估术后疼痛,分值从 "无痛 "到 "最严重疼痛 "不等:结果:两组患者的 VAS 评分比较显示 P > 0.001,即所有组别均无显著性差异。干预组和对照组分别有 56% 和 60% 的患者需要额外的镇痛药,但干预组和对照组分别有 44% 和 40% 的患者在术后无需额外镇痛:结论:在妇科腹腔镜手术中,局部浸润布比卡因并不能明显减轻端口部位的术后疼痛。
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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
98
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Novel Technique of Laparoscopic Transabdominal Cerclage after a Mersilene Tape Erosion in a Prior Laparoscopic Radical Trachelectomy and Transvaginal Cerclage Patient. Comment on "Evaluation of the success of hysteroscopic uterine septum resection". Hysteroscopic Uterine Septum Resection: Is it a Successful Treatment for Infertile Patients? Laparoscopic Excision of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: An Optimum Management Option. Laparoscopic Posterior Pelvic Exenteration with Radical Vulvectomy for Intestinal-type Vulvar Adenocarcinoma.
×
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