Effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques on postoperative pain: a prospective randomized study.

Journal of the Korean Surgical Society Pub Date : 2013-10-01 Epub Date: 2013-09-30 DOI:10.4174/jkss.2013.85.4.149
Huseyin Yilmaz, Oguzhan Arun, Seza Apiliogullari, Fahrettin Acar, Husnu Alptekin, Akın Calisir, Mustafa Sahin
{"title":"Effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy techniques on postoperative pain: a prospective randomized study.","authors":"Huseyin Yilmaz, Oguzhan Arun, Seza Apiliogullari, Fahrettin Acar, Husnu Alptekin, Akın Calisir, Mustafa Sahin","doi":"10.4174/jkss.2013.85.4.149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Minimally invasive surgical technics have benefits such as decreased pain, reduced surgical trauma, and increased potential to perform as day case surgery, and cost benefit. The primary aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled study was to compare the effects of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures regarding postoperative pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in the study. Patients were randomized to either SILC or CLC. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores, rescue analgesic use, and intraoperative and early postoperative complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 83 patients completed the study. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores and rescue analgesic requirement were similar between each group except with the lower abdominal pain score in CLC group at 30th minute (P = 0.04). Wound infection was seen in 1 patient in each group. Nausea occurred in 13 of 43 patients (30%) in the SILC group and 8 of 40 patients (20%) in the CLC group (P > 0.05). Despite ondansetron treatment, 6 patients in SILC group and 7 patients in CLC group vomited (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, SILC or CLC techniques does not influence the postoperative pain and analgesic medication requirements. Our results also suggest that all laparoscopy patients suffer moderate and/or severe abdominal pain and nearly half of these patients also suffer from some form of shoulder pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":49991,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/26/cb/jkss-85-149.PMC3791356.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.4.149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/9/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Minimally invasive surgical technics have benefits such as decreased pain, reduced surgical trauma, and increased potential to perform as day case surgery, and cost benefit. The primary aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled study was to compare the effects of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures regarding postoperative pain.

Methods: Ninety adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in the study. Patients were randomized to either SILC or CLC. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores, rescue analgesic use, and intraoperative and early postoperative complications were recorded.

Results: A total of 83 patients completed the study. Patient characteristics, postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain scores and rescue analgesic requirement were similar between each group except with the lower abdominal pain score in CLC group at 30th minute (P = 0.04). Wound infection was seen in 1 patient in each group. Nausea occurred in 13 of 43 patients (30%) in the SILC group and 8 of 40 patients (20%) in the CLC group (P > 0.05). Despite ondansetron treatment, 6 patients in SILC group and 7 patients in CLC group vomited (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: In conclusion, in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, SILC or CLC techniques does not influence the postoperative pain and analgesic medication requirements. Our results also suggest that all laparoscopy patients suffer moderate and/or severe abdominal pain and nearly half of these patients also suffer from some form of shoulder pain.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
腹腔镜胆囊切除术技术对术后疼痛的影响:一项前瞻性随机研究。
目的:微创手术技术具有减轻疼痛、减少手术创伤、增加日间手术可能性和成本效益等优点。这项前瞻性随机对照研究的主要目的是比较单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(SILC)和传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术(CLC)对术后疼痛的影响:研究纳入了90名接受择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术的成年患者。患者被随机分配到 SILC 或 CLC。研究记录了患者特征、术后腹痛和肩痛评分、止痛药使用情况以及术中和术后早期并发症:共有 83 名患者完成了研究。各组患者的特征、术后腹部和肩部疼痛评分以及镇痛药需求相似,但 CLC 组患者在第 30 分钟时的腹部疼痛评分较低(P = 0.04)。每组各有一名患者出现伤口感染。SILC 组 43 名患者中有 13 名(30%)出现恶心,CLC 组 40 名患者中有 8 名(20%)出现恶心(P > 0.05)。尽管接受了昂丹司琼治疗,但 SILC 组有 6 名患者呕吐,CLC 组有 7 名患者呕吐(P > 0.05):总之,在接受腹腔镜手术的患者中,SILC 或 CLC 技术不会影响术后疼痛和镇痛药物的需求。我们的研究结果还表明,所有腹腔镜手术患者都有中度和/或重度腹痛,其中近一半患者还伴有某种形式的肩痛。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Matrix Metalloproteinase 41 : inside the presidency of George H.W. Bush Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in mucosal gastric cancer and re-evaluation of endoscopic submucosal dissection The optimal follow-up period in patients with above 5-year disease-free survival after curative liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.
×
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