Knowledge Key:
Intra-Operative
Expand all
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Intra-operative COX-2-selective inhibitors are recommended (Grade B) for colonic resection based on procedure-specific evidence that they have an analgesic effect postoperatively (LoE 2), only for patients who do not receive epidural analgesia (LoE 4)
- It is recommended that the use of COX-2-selective inhibitors should depend upon assessment of individual patient risks (Grade B) (cardiovascular morbidity [transferable evidence, LoE 1], renal function and hepatic function [transferable evidence, LoE 3], or actual or recent gastroduodenal ulcer history [LoE 4]). In addition, the potential risk of anastomotic leakage needs to be considered (transferable evidence, LoE 3). Further observations are required regarding the potential risk of NSAIDs and
Clinical Practice
- Rofecoxib has been withdrawn from the market, and marketing of valdecoxib has been suspended in most countries
- There is no procedure-specific evidence that intra-operative administration of COX-2-selective inhibitors is more effective than postoperative administration
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures - Study information
- Randomised endoscopic trials in healthy volunteers have shown that COX-2-selective inhibitors are associated with a lower incidence of upper gastrointestinal ulceration compared with conventional NSAIDs for short-term use
- A retrospective cohort study showed that the COX-2-selective inhibitors rofecoxib and celecoxib were associated with a lower risk of acute kidney infection than less-selective NSAIDs
- A meta-analysis that included data from 17 parecoxib and 15 valdecoxib placebo-controlled trials in non-cardiac surgery showed that there was no significant association between short-term treatment with parecoxib and/or valdecoxib and an increase in cardiovascular thromboembolic adverse events, compared with placebo (n=8511 overall)
- A review concluded that COX-2-selective inhibitors were as effective as conventional NSAIDs for treatment of postoperative pain in various surgical models, and offer a number of other advantages including: reduced incidence of gastrointestinal ulceration, no inhibitory effect on platelet function (and thereby a reduced risk of blood loss) and no induction of bronchospasm in patients with aspirin-sensitive asthma
- A study to assess the safety of the COX-2-selective inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib following noncardiac general surgery (including gastrointestinal, orthopaedic, gynaecological, urological, and thoracic surgeries) showed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular thromboembolic events, renal dysfunction/failure, gastrointestinal ulcer complications, and surgical wound-healing complications, compared with placebo (n=1062)
- Clinical studies investigating the response to oral challenge with COX-2-selective inhibitors in patients with aspirin-induced asthma have demonstrated that COX-2-selective inhibitors do not have an effect on respiratory function
- A randomised clinical trial showed that the COX-2-selective inhibitor rofecoxib was associated with significantly less intra-operative blood loss than the conventional NSAID diclofenac in patients undergoing abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy or breast surgery
- Studies in healthy volunteers demonstrated that COX-2-selective inhibitors had no effect on platelet aggregation
- COX-2-selective inhibitors provide similar postoperative analgesia to conventional NSAIDs
- A pre-operative single bolus of COX-2-selective inhibitor did not significantly reduce postoperative pain scores at rest compared with placebo within 0–24 h in two studies of patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy (n=40; n=36)
- Two clinical trials showed that in patients who had undergone CABG surgery COX-2-selective inhibitors (valdecoxib and parecoxib) were associated with a higher rate of serious cardiovascular thromboembolic events (including myocardial infarction) compared with placebo
- Hypersensitivity reactions and serious skin reactions (e.g. toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and erythema multiforme) can occur with all COX-2-selective inhibitors. Serious skin reactions have been reported in association with valdecoxib at a higher rate than with other COX-2-selective agents
- Conventional NSAIDs and COX-2-selective inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of transient hepatotoxicity. Cases of acute hepatic failure have also been reported. Elderly females, with autoimmune disease, and taking other potentially hepatotoxic drugs, may be most susceptible
- Short-term use of COX-2-selective inhibitors or conventional NSAIDs can increase the risk of transient renal impairment, especially in patients with existing renal dysfunction, and both types of agent have been associated with cases of acute renal failure in high-risk patients
- COX-2-selective inhibitors and conventional NSAIDs may elevate blood pressure, particularly in hypertensive patients receiving antihypertensive medication
- Although there is some concern COX-2-selective inhibitors may impair wound healing, evidence from animal and clinical studies is conflicting
- One study in patients undergoing fast-track colonic surgery found that postoperative analgesia with the COX-2-selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leakage, compared with when celecoxib was not used
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Intra-operative parecoxib was superior to placebo for the reduction of postoperative morphine consumption Click here for more information
- Intra-operative IV parecoxib (40 mg) conferred some benefit over placebo for the reduction of postoperative resting pain scores Click here for more information
- There were no significant differences between the intra-operative IV parecoxib and pre-operative IV parecoxib groups for NRS pain scores at rest, or during coughing, during the first 48 h postoperatively
- Intra-operative IV parecoxib conferred no significant benefit over placebo for reducing PCA morphine consumption in the recovery room
- There was no significant difference in postoperative morphine consumption between the intra-operative IV parecoxib group and the pre-operative IV parecoxib group within 0–48 h after surgery
- The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness and pruritus was similar between the intra-operative IV parecoxib, pre-operative IV parecoxib, and placebo groups
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Clonidine is not recommended (Grade D), despite limited procedure-specific evidence for analgesic efficacy, because it is associated with an increased risk of hypotension, sedation and bradycardia (LoE 4)
Clinical Practice
- The risk/benefit ratio for clonidine is unclear. Recognised side effects include hypotension, sedation, dizziness and bradycardia
- There is no consensus among clinicians on the optimum dose of clonidine that should be used
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- Clonidine is associated with an increased risk of hypotension and bradycardia Click here for more information
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- IV clonidine given before skin incision, or before peritoneal incision, was superior to fentanyl given before skin incision for postoperative analgesic outcomes Click here for more information
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Pre- or intra-operative calcium channel antagonists are not recommended (Grade B), based on limited procedure-specific evidence showing a lack of postoperative analgesic effect (LoE 2)
Clinical Practice
- Clinical experience with calcium channel antagonists is lacking
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- [None Cited]
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- IV nimodipine conferred no significant benefit over placebo for postoperative pain scores at rest or movement 0–120 h postoperatively, except at 72 h when a reduction in movement pain reached significance (n=47)
- Oral nifedipine was significantly inferior to placebo for postoperative pain scores at rest at 16 and 24 h (p<0.05; n=46)
- Nimodipine or nifedipine provided no significant benefit over placebo for reducing the following postoperative outcomes: morphine requirements for 0–24 h; sedation scores for 0–48 h; the incidence of nausea and vomiting; time to first bowel movement and time to first flatus (n=69)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Gabapentin/pregabalin cannot be recommended at this time (Grade D, LoE 4) due to a lack of procedure-specific evidence, although analgesic data from other procedures are promising
Clinical Practice
- [None cited]
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- Four systematic reviews and a meta-analysis evaluated the use of gabapentinoids for postoperative analgesia and demonstrated significant reductions in postoperative pain and supplementary analgesic requirements compared with inactive controls
- Two systematic reviews
- Two systematic reviews
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence
- [No data found within the parameters of the systematic review]
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Continuous administration of IV lidocaine limited to the pre/intra-operative period is not recommended (Grade D) because of inconsistent and insufficient procedure-specific evidence
- Continuous administration of pre/intra-operative IV lidocaine continuous administration is recommended if continued during the immediate postoperative period when epidural analgesia is not feasible or contra-indicated (Grade B), based on transferable evidence (LoE 1) and limited procedure-specific evidence (LoE 2) for recovery benefits compared with control
Clinical Practice
- IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative when there are contra-indications to epidural analgesia techniques
- Further evidence is needed to precisely define the role of IV lidocaine in this setting, including direct comparisons with epidural analgesia
- IV lidocaine may induce hypotension
- If IV lidocaine is used it is recommended that safety data are taken into account
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures - Study information
- A meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials performed to evaluate the effect of continuous IV lidocaine infusion during and after abdominal surgery reported that lidocaine significantly reduced postoperative VAS pain scores, duration of postoperative ileus, incidence of PONV, and length of hospital stay, compared with the controls
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Pre-/intra-operative IV lidocaine reduced postoperative pain scores compared with control Click here for more information
- Pre-/intra-operative IV lidocaine significantly reduced postoperative morphine requirement compared with control Click here for more information
- Pre-/intra-operative IV lidocaine significantly reduced intra-operative fentanyl requirement compared with control Click here for more information
- Pre-/intra-operative IV lidocaine was associated with a lower incidence of morphine-related nausea or vomiting compared with control (p<0.01; n=40)
- Pre-/intra-operative IV lidocaine significantly reduced the time to first flatus compared with the control group (p<0.01; n=40)
- Peri-operative IV lidocaine significantly reduced the time to first flatus compared with the control group (p<0.05; n=60)
- The time to first bowel movement was significantly shorter with peri-operative IV lidocaine compared with the control (p<0.05; n=60)
- Peri-operative IV lidocaine significantly reduced the time taken to solid food intake, compared with the control (p<0.001; n=60)
- Peri-operative IV lidocaine significantly reduced the duration of hospital stay, compared with the control (p=0.004; n=60)
- Pre-/intra-operative IV lidocaine conferred no significant benefit over control for reducing the length of hospital stay (n=40)
- Peri-operative IV lidocaine conferred no significant benefit over the control for the reduction of VAS pain scores at rest or during movement at any of the time points assessed (n=60)
- Peri-operative IV lidocaine conferred no significant benefit over control for reducing the consumption of PCA IV piritramide (2 mg dose with a lockout period of 10 minutes) (n= 60)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Intra-operative NMDA receptor antagonists are not recommended (Grade D, LoE 4) because of limited procedure-specific evidence of analgesic efficacy
Clinical Practice
- There is a lack of clinical experience with NMDA receptor antagonists. Moreover, NMDA receptor antagonists are associated with adverse events, e.g. ketamine is known for its increased risk of CNS side effects
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- Studies of intravenous or neuraxial ketamine in a variety of surgeries, including abdominal, gynaecological, orthopaedic, gastric, hepatic, and genitourinary surgery, showed a reduction in postoperative pain and opioid use when used as an adjunct to morphine
- In patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, dextromethorphan (pre- incisional and post gallbladder removal) was superior to control for reducing VAS scores, reducing the use of supplementary analgesics, and increasing the time to first analgesic request
- Low-dose ketamine was associated with few and mild adverse effects, especially when administered in conjunction with general anaesthesia
- A systematic review found that dextromethorphan did not reduce postoperative pain scores with a clinically significant magnitude, and although significant decreases in supplemental opioid consumption were observed, these were of questionable clinical importance in most cases
- Two meta-analyses comparing pre-incisional and postincisional treatments found no significant analgesic benefit of pre-incisional administration of NMDA receptor antagonists
- Two systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials comparing magnesium with placebo demonstrated inconclusive results overall with regards to pain scores and supplemental analgesic use (
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Intra-operative ketamine was superior to placebo for reducing postoperative pain scores in the first 15 min (p<0.05), decreasing morphine use for 0–24 h compared with placebo (p<0.01), and extending the time to first analgesic request (p<0.001) compared with placebo (n=50)
- IV magnesium provided no significant benefit over placebo for reducing the following postoperative outcomes: pain scores at rest or during movement; morphine requirements for 0–24 h; sedation scores 0–48 h; incidence of nausea and vomiting; time to first bowel movement; and time to first flatus (n=47)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- In patients undergoing colonic resection and receiving epidural anaesthesia, intra-operative administration of systemic, long-acting strong opioids to provide postoperative analgesia is not recommended (Grade D, LoE 4)
- However, in patients not indicated for epidural anaesthesia, systemic intra-operative strong opioids are recommended to provide early postoperative pain relief (Grade B), based on transferable evidence (LoE 1) of analgesic efficacy
Clinical Practice
- [None Cited]
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures - Study information
- Intra-operative strong opioid provided a benefit over placebo up to 4 h for reducing postoperative pain scores at rest (one of three studies) and reducing the supplementary analgesic consumption (three studies), but showed no significant difference for the time to first analgesic request (one study), in patients undergoing hysterectomy Click here for more information
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Low-dose remifentanil infusion plus titrated desflurane conferred a benefit for reducing postoperative pain scores at 3 and 4 h compared with a high-dose remifentanil infusion plus fixed-dose desflurane (both times p<0.05; n=49)
- Low-dose remifentanil infusion plus titrated desflurane was superior for reducing cumulative supplementary analgesic consumption compared with a high-dose remifentanil infusion plus fixed-dose desflurane (p<0.01; n=49)
- Low-dose remifentanil infusion plus titrated desflurane increased the number of patients classified as 'calm' compared with a high-dose remifentanil infusion plus fixed-dose desflurane Click here for more information
- Low-dose remifentanil infusion plus titrated desflurane had a similar time to first request of supplementary analgesia and a similar incidence of PONV compared with a high-dose remifentanil infusion plus fixed-dose desflurane (n=49)
- Sufentanil anaesthesia was superior to remifentanil anaesthesia plus intra-operative bolus IV morphine for reducing postoperative pain scores at 2 h, but the scores were similar from 2–12 h (p<0.01; n=30)
- Sufentanil anaesthesia was superior to remifentanil anaesthesia plus intra-operative bolus IV morphine for the reduction of supplementary analgesic consumption in the PACU and at 4, 12 and 24 h (p<0.05; n=30)
- Sufentanil anaesthesia was superior to remifentanil anaesthesia plus intra-operative bolus IV morphine for extending the time to first analgesic request (p<0.05; n=30)
- Sufentanil anaesthesia was similar to remifentanil anaesthesia plus intra-operative bolus IV morphine for the incidence of PONV and sedation scores (n=30)
- Remifentanil infusion at a low-dose compared with remifentanil infusion at a high-dose was associated with a similar percentage of sedated patients Click here for more information
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Intra-operative systemic weak opioids are not recommended (Grade D, LoE 4), as placebo-controlled evidence for their benefit in reducing postoperative pain is limited. Moreover, epidural LA + strong opioid is the regimen recommended for routine use in patients undergoing colonic resection
- In patients not receiving epidural anaesthesia, intra-operative strong opioids, not weak opioids, are recommended to provide early postoperative pain relief (Grade B, see Intra-operative Strong Opioid section)
Clinical Practice
- Tramadol 300 mg is considered to be a clinically effective dose, and therefore the 100 mg dose used in the study by Wordliczek et al. is likely to be too low to provide sufficient pain relief
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures - Study information
- Intra-operative IV tramadol was superior to placebo for reducing tramadol use and postoperative pain scores in the PACU following abdominal surgery (p<0.05 for all comparisons; n=60)
- Intra-operative IV tramadol was superior to placebo for reducing the incidence (p<0.05) and severity (p<0.05) of PONV following abdominal surgery (n=60)
- For patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intra-operative tramadol IV at wound closure was superior to control for reducing VAS scores, reducing the use of supplementary analgesics and increasing the time to first analgesic request
- Intra-operative IV tramadol was similar to placebo for the number of postoperative PCA boluses delivered and total tramadol consumption (n=60)
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Administration of IV tramadol immediately after peritoneal closure, or immediately following surgery extended the time to first analgesic request compared with pre-operative administration (p<0.01; n=90)
- Pre-, or intra-operative IV tramadol 100 mg did not confer any benefit for reducing postoperative pain scores compared with postoperative IV tramadol 100 mg Click here for more information
- Tramadol 100 mg administered pre- or intra-operatively, did not confer any benefit for reducing the incidence of PONV compared with postoperative IV tramadol 100 mg (n=90)
- Pre-operative administration of IV tramadol was superior to administration immediately after peritoneal closure or postoperatively for reducing total tramadol consumption (p<0.05; n=90)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Continuous thoracic epidural anaesthesia and analgesia is recommended (Grade A) for routine use in colonic resection based on its benefit in reducing postoperative pain, systemic opioid use and bowel recovery time (procedure-specific evidence, LoE 1)
- A combination of epidural local anaesthetic (LA) and strong opioid is recommended for epidural analgesia (Grade A), based on procedure-specific evidence of their combined efficacy in reducing postoperative pain and systemic opioid use, compared with LA alone (LoE 1). However, the addition of opioid to epidural LA results in an increase in time to first bowel movement (LoE 1)
- Addition of clonidine to the combination of epidural LA + opioid is not recommended (Grade D) because of side effects, despite favourable effects on pain scores
Clinical Practice
- Thoracic epidural is considered to be more appropriate than lumbar epidural for anaesthesia and analgesia in colonic resection
- Epidural analgesia is associated with a relatively high degree of patient monitoring and rare major complications
- A minority of patients may need to receive general anaesthesia plus systemic analgesia due to a contra-indication to the epidural technique
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- [None Cited]
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Epidural LA and strong opioid produced a significant reduction in the use of supplementary analgesia compared with GA plus systemic analgesia in two studies (p<0.05, n=64; p<0.001, n=20)
- Cumulative number of satisfied analgesic requests was significantly lower with intra-/postoperative epidural bupivacaine-sufentanil-clonidine + intra-operative IV ketamine, compared with intra-operative IV lidocaine-sufentanil-clonidine + intra-operative IV ketamine + postoperative IV lidocaine-morphine-clonidine, from 24–72 h after surgery (p<0.05; n=40), but not at 12 h
- Intra-/postoperative epidural bupivacaine-sufentanil-clonidine was superior to intra-operative IV lidocaine-sufentanil-clonidine + postoperative IV lidocaine-morphine-clonidine for reducing postoperative pain Click here for more information
- The addition of opioid to epidural LA conferred a benefit over epidural LA alone in reducing postoperative pain scores in two studies Click here for more information
- Epidural lidocaine was associated with a lower incidence of morphine-related nausea or vomiting, compared with control (p<0.01; n=40)
- Epidural lidocaine was superior to control for reducing the time until first flatus (p<0.01; n=40)
- The proportion of patients receiving intra-operative epidural lidocaine that required an intra-operative fentanyl supplement, was significantly lower compared with the control group (n=40)
- Epidural lidocaine was superior to the control for reducing postoperative opioid requirement Click here for more information
- Epidural lidocaine was more effective than the control for the reduction of postoperative pain scores Click here for more information
- GA + intra-operative epidural lidocaine + postoperative PCEA significantly reduced the time to first flatus compared with GA alone + postoperative PCEA (p<0.0001; n=60)
- GA + intra-operative epidural lidocaine + postoperative PCEA was more effective than GA alone + postoperative PCEA for reducing postoperative opioid requirements Click here for more information
- GA + intra-operative epidural lidocaine + postop PCEA was superior to GA alone + postop PCEA for reducing VAS pain scores on coughing at a minority of time points Click here for more information
- A meta-analysis of randomised studies performed to compare the effect of local anaesthetic epidural analgesia with parenteral opioid analgesia in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, reported that epidural analgesia significantly reduced postoperative VAS pain scores at 24 h (11 studies analysed, n=630) and 48 h postoperatively (6 studies analysed, n=281) (p<0.001 for both comparisons)
- Epidural LA and opioid showed a significant benefit for reducing postoperative pain scores compared with GA plus systemic analgesia in six studies Click here for more information
- Epidural LA and strong opioid was superior to GA plus systemic analgesia for increasing the time to first request of supplementary analgesia in one study (p<0.005; n=20)
- Epidural LA plus opioid was associated with a similar length of hospital stay compared with GA plus systemic analgesia in two studies (n=42, n=20)
- Epidural LA plus opioid produced a significantly quicker time for first flatus and time for first bowel movement compared with GA plus systemic analgesia in two studies (all p<0.05; n=64, n=42)
- Epidural bupivacaine plus morphine was associated with recovery of gastrointestinal function and fulfilled discharge criteria approximately 1.5 days earlier compared with GA and IV plus postoperative PCA morphine (p<0.005; n=26)
- Epidural bupivacaine plus morphine had a similar incidence of orthostatic hypotension compared with GA and IV plus postoperative PCA morphine (n=26)
- Two studies demonstrated that epidural bupivacaine conferred a benefit over general anaesthesia and systemic analgesia for reducing postoperative pain scores at rest for 1–72 h in one study (all p<0.05; n=116)
- Epidural bupivacaine administration resulted in significantly fewer patients requiring supplementary analgesia compared with GA plus systemic analgesia for 1–48 h postoperatively (p<0.05; n=116)
- Epidural bupivacaine administration resulted in significantly more patients having a bowel movement by Day 4 compared with GA plus systemic analgesia (p<0.05; n=116)
- Epidural bupivacaine was associated with recovery of gastrointestinal function and fulfilled discharge criteria approximately 1.5 days earlier compared with GA and IV bolus plus postoperative PCA morphine (p<0.005; n=26)
- A meta-analysis of 11 randomised studies showed that the duration of gastrointestinal dysfunction was significantly shorter with epidural analgesia, compared with parenteral opioid analgesia (n=510, p<0.001)
- Epidural infusion of opioid was similar to GA and IV plus postoperative PCA morphine for postoperative pain scores
- Epidural morphine was associated with a similar incidence of nausea and orthostatic hypotension compared with GA and IV plus postoperative PCA morphine (n=24)
- Epidural bupivacaine was associated with an increased incidence of orthostatic hypotension compared with GA and IV plus postoperative PCA morphine (p<0.05) (n=26)
- Epidural bupivacaine had a similar incidence of nausea compared with GA and IV plus postoperative PCA morphine (n=26)
- A meta-analysis of randomised studies performed to compare the effect of local anaesthetic epidural analgesia with parenteral opioid analgesia in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, found no significant difference in the incidence of PONV (5 studies analysed; n=189), anastomotic leakage (7 studies analysed; n=459), or length of hospital stay (n=716)
- Epidural lidocaine + GA conferred no significant benefit over GA alone for reducing the length of hospital stay (n=60)
- There was no significant difference in the incidence of morphine-related side-effects (drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting and pruritus) with epidural lidocaine + GA versus GA alone (n=60)
- Epidural lidocaine conferred no significant benefit over the control for reducing the length of hospital stay (n=40)
- Epidural LA plus strong opioid showed no difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting compared with GA plus systemic analgesia in four studies Click here for more information
- Intra-/postoperative epidural bupivacaine-sufentanil-clonidine + intra-operative IV ketamine was associated with a higher incidence of orthostatic hypotension at first mobilisation, compared with intra-operative IV lidocaine-sufentanil-clonidine + intra-operative IV ketamine + postoperative IV lidocaine-morphine-clonidine (p=0.05; n=40)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Spinal analgesia is not recommended in combination with epidural anaesthesia (Grade B), based on a lack of benefit in reducing postoperative pain in colonic resection (LoE 2). Moreover, it introduces a greater level of complexity (LoE 4)
Clinical Practice
- [None Cited]
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- [None Cited]
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Combined spinal/thoracic epidural anaesthesia conferred no additional benefit over peri-operative thoracic epidural infusion alone for postoperative pain scores at rest and on coughing from 4–24 h (n=20)
- Combined spinal/thoracic epidural anaesthesia compared with continuous epidural infusion alone were similar for supplementary analgesic consumption (n=20)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- No recommendation can be made about general anaesthetic techniques for open colonic resection because of limited procedure-specific evidence
Clinical Practice
- For laparoscopic procedures, the use of nitrous oxide may result in increased bowel distension
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- One randomised study investigating the efficacy of prophylactic antimetic interventions in patients undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia concluded that the risk of PONV was 12% greater with N2O compared with nitrogen
- One randomised study comparing nitrous oxide-based anaesthesia with nitrous oxide-free anaesthesia in patients undergoing major surgery, found that the avoidance of nitrous oxide decreased the incidence of postoperative complications, but did significantly reduce the length of hospital stay (Myles 2007)
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Two studies reported that postoperative VAS pain scores were significantly lower with nitrogen compared with nitrous oxide after 2 h (p=0.02; n=344 and p=0.014; n=408)
- Two studies reported that VAS nausea scores were significantly lower with nitrogen compared with nitrous oxide (p=0.04; n=344 and p=0.007; n=408)
- One study reported that moderate-to-severe bowel distension was significantly less common in patients following GA with nitrogen, compared with nitrous oxide (p<0.001; n=344)
- Nitrous oxide was superior to intra-operative IV remifentanil for the reduction of VAS pain scores on arrival in the PACU (p<0.05; n=60), but not after 5, 10 or 15 min
- Two studies reported no significant difference in the level of PCA opioid consumption (piritramide) between patients receiving GA with nitrogen or nitrous oxide (n=344; n=408)
- Two studies showed that the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was similar with nitrous oxide and nitrogen (n=344; n=408)
- There was no significant difference in the time to first flatus, first bowel movement, or first intake of solid food between patients in the groups receiving GA with nitrogen or nitrous oxide (n=408)
- The length of hospital stay was similar for patients in the groups that received general anaesthesia with nitrogen and general anaesthesia with nitrous oxide (n=408)
- There were no significant differences between the nitrous oxide and intra-operative IV remifentanil groups in VAS pain scores at rest or movement from 0–24 h postoperatively (n=60)
- There was no significant difference between the nitrous oxide and intra-operative IV remifentanil groups for postoperative morphine consumption in the PACU, or during the first postoperative day (n=60)
- There was a similar incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting between patients receiving nitrous oxide and IV remifentanil (n=60)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- The decision concerning the type of operative technique or incision to use for colonic resection should be primarily based on factors other than the management of postoperative pain, e.g. malignancy versus benign disease; operative risk factors of the patient; risk of wound infection; and availability of surgical expertise (Grade D, LoE 4)
- Laparoscopic colonic resection is recommended over open colon surgery for reducing postoperative pain (Grade A), if the conditions outlined above allow, based on procedure-specific evidence (LoE 1).
- See laparoscopic section for recommendations on pain management for laparoscopic colonic resection
- A horizontal/curved (transverse) incision is recommended over a vertical incision for analgesic and other benefits, if the operative conditions allow (Grade B) based on limited procedure-specific evidence (LoE 2) and transferable evidence. In addition, the horizontal/curved incision is preferred for its cosmetic benefits (Grade D, LoE 4)
- Diathermy is recommended over the scalpel (Grade B), based on analgesic benefits as well as greater speed of incision and less blood loss (transferable evidence, LoE 2)
Clinical Practice
- The decision to employ a laparoscopic versus open approach for colonic surgery is based on multiple factors such as the indication for surgery (e.g. benign or malignant disease) and surgical expertise, as well as the desired outcomes
- If the surgical indication allows, a transverse incision is preferred for abdominal procedures such as colonic resection
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures
- The transverse incision was similar to the vertical incision for access to intra-abdominal structures and resulted in significantly less postoperative pain and a lower incidence of pulmonary complications; however, vertical laparotomy is associated with a shorter operating time and better possibilities for extension of the incision, as found in a systematic review in abdominal surgery
- Laparotomy incisions using diathermy had significantly lower VAS scores at 48 h (p<0.05), morphine consumption over the first 5 days (p<0.04), less blood loss (p=0.002), and were associated with a faster speed of incision (p<0.04) compared with scalpel incisions in patients undergoing elective midline laparotomy (n=100)
- Laparoscopic surgery resulted in an increased operating time, but reduced postoperative pain, hospital stay and return to normal activity compared with open surgery, as demonstrated in a number of reviews of the literature of patients undergoing resection for colonic cancer, cholecystectomy, appendectomy (systematic) and groin hernia (systematic)
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- A transverse incision was similar to a midline vertical incision for the time to resume normal diet, time to first bowel movement and duration of hospital stay (n=40)
- One study showed that hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy was superior to open colectomy for reducing the time until first oral food intake (p<0.05, n=60)
- Two studies showed that hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy was superior to open colectomy for reducing the length of hospital stay (p=0.004, n=81; p<0.001, n=60)
- Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy was superior to open colectomy for reducing the time to first flatus and first bowel movement Click here for more information
- Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy was superior to open colectomy for reducing supplementary analgesic consumption Click here for more information
- Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy was superior to open colectomy for the reduction of postoperative pain scores Click here for more information
- A systematic review comparing laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer reported that one of two randomised controlled studies showed laparoscopic surgery was superior for reducing postoperative pain scores
- A systematic review comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for colorectal cancer, concluded that laparoscopic surgery was associated with less blood loss, less postoperative pain, less postoperative analgesic consumption, faster return to normal bowel function, and a shorter hospital stay
- A systematic review of laparoscopic resection of colon cancer, combined with expert opinion, concluded that pain is less severe and that less analgesia is required after laparoscopic resection than open resection
- Meta-analysis of twelve studies showed that laparoscopic resection reduced morbidity, wound infection, time to recovery and hospital stay compared with open resection
- A meta-analysis of seven studies reporting analgesic outcomes showed a significant benefit of laparoscopic resection over open colonic resection for reduced pain at rest and on coughing, and reduced analgesic requirement for up to 3 days (not all studies recorded pain scores)
- One study reported that there was no significant difference in the incidence of PONV between the laparoscopic colonic resection and open colonic resection techniques (n=60)
- Laparoscopic resection was superior to open colonic resection for reducing length of hospital stay in four of five studies Click here for more information
- Laparoscopic resection was superior to open colonic resection for reducing time to first flatus and bowel movement in three studies Click here for more information
- Laparoscopic resection was superior to open colonic resection for reducing supplementary analgesic consumption Click here for more information
- Laparoscopic resection was superior to open colonic resection for reducing postoperative pain scores Click here for more information
- A transverse incision conferred significant benefit over a midline vertical incision for reducing postoperative pain on movement on Days 1 and 3, and reducing supplementary analgesic consumption (all p<0.05); however, both incision techniques were similar for postoperative pain scores at rest (n=40)
- A systematic review comparing laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer reported that two of three randomised studies found no significant difference between laparoscopic and open techniques for reducing postoperative analgesic consumption. However, there was a trend for less analgesia in the laparoscopic group
- Hand-assisted laparoscopic proctocolectomy conferred no significant benefit over open proctocolectomy for reducing VAS pain scores at rest and during movement on Days 1, 2, 3 and 7, and at Week 4 (n=55)
- There was no significant difference in the postoperative morphine requirement between patients who received hand-assisted laparoscopic proctocolectomy versus open proctolectomy at 24, 48 or 72 h (n=55)
- Hand-assisted laparoscopic proctocolectomy conferred no significant benefit over open proctolectomy for reducing the time taken for patients to return to normal fluid or food consumption (n=55)
PROSPECT Recommendations
- Maintenance of normothermia is recommended (Grade A) for improved clinical outcomes (procedure-specific evidence, LoE 1) but it is not helpful for reducing postoperative pain (LoE 1)
Clinical Practice
- Although there are no benefits for pain reduction, keeping patients normothermic has benefits for reducing oxygen consumption and decreasing myocardial work, which is important for elderly patients and those at risk of cardiac events
Transferable Evidence from Other Procedures - Study information
- One study showed that aggressive warming was superior to conventional warming in total hip arthroplasty for reducing intra-operative and total blood loss (p=0.002), but no difference in postoperative blood loss was observed (n=150)
- A randomized controlled trial in high-risk patients showed that maintenance of normothermia reduced the incidence of morbid cardiac events in the peri-operative period compared with routine thermal care (p=0.02, n=300)
- Maintenance of normothermia decreased the post-anaesthetic recovery time compared with routine thermal management (p<0.001, n=150) in patients undergoing abdominal surgery
- Maintenance of normothermia may prevent adverse effects of mild hypothermia, which reduces resistance to wound infection, is associated with increased protein wasting and decreased collagen synthesis, reduces platelet function and impairs coagulation, increases the incidence of morbid cardiac events, decreases drug metabolism, increases anaesthetic recovery time, and induces shivering
- Patients kept normothermic showed no significant difference in postoperative pain scores compared with patients kept hypothermic during elective major abdominal surgery (n=150)
Open Colonic Resection-Specific Evidence - Study information
- Patients kept normothermic required significantly less bupivacaine to maintain adequate epidural blockade than patients kept hypothermic in one study (p=0.006; n=30)
- Maintenance of normothermia was associated with higher comfort scores and a similar heart rate and blood pressure than maintenance of hypothermia in one study (n=74)
- Maintenance of normothermia was associated with lower incidence of wound infections, fewer transfusions and quicker suture removal and hospital discharge compared with maintenance of hypothermia (p=0.01 for all outcomes) (n=200)
- Patients kept normothermic were similar to patients kept hypothermic for postoperative pain scores in three studies (n=74, n=200, n=30)