Continuous wound infusion of local anaesthetic agents following colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a specific review and meta-analysis of the available evidence for continuous wound infusion of local anaesthetic agents following midline laparotomy for major colorectal surgery.


METHODS
Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and article reference lists were searched to identify randomised, controlled trials of continuous wound infusion of local anaesthetic agents following colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were opioid consumption, pain visual analogue scores (VASs), return to bowel function and length of hospital stay. Weighted mean difference were calculated for continuous outcomes.


RESULTS
Five trials containing 542 laparotomy wounds were eligible for inclusion. There was a significant decrease in post-operative pain VAS at rest on day 3 (weighted mean difference: -0.43; 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.04; P = 0.03) but not on post-operative day 1 and 2. Local anaesthetic infusion was associated with a significant reduction in pain VAS on movement on all three post-operative days (day 1 weighted mean difference: -1.14; 95% CI: -2.24 to -0.041; P = 0.04, day 2 weighted mean difference: -0.97, 95% CI: -1.91 to -0.029; P = 0.04, day 3 weighted mean difference: -0.61; 95% CI: 1.01 to -0.20; P = 0.0038). Local anaesthetic wound infusion was associated with a significant decrease in total opioid consumption (weighted mean difference: -40.13; 95% CI: -76.74 to -3.53; P = 0.03). There was no significant decrease in length of stay (weighted mean difference: -20.87; 95% CI: -46.96 to 5.21; P = 0.12) or return of bowel function (weighted mean difference: -9.40; 95% CI: -33.98 to 15.17; P = 0.45).


CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that local anaesthetic wound infusion following laparotomy for major colorectal surgery is a promising technique but do not provide conclusive evidence of benefit. Further research is required including cost-effectiveness analysis.
Karthikesalingam
Alan
A
Department of General Surgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB22QQ, United Kingdom.
Walsh
Stewart R
SR
Markar
Sheraz R
SR
Sadat
Umar
U
Tang
Tjun Y
TY
Malata
Charles M
CM
D000779:Anesthetics, Local / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000191:economics; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D013505:Digestive System Surgical Procedures; D006801:Humans; D036502:Infusions, Intralesional; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000503:physiopathology
D000779:Anesthetics, Local
J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Feb;202(2):297-305
16427556
Anesthesiology. 2007 Sep;107(3):461-8
17721249
Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12
8721797
Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Dec;50(12):2158-67
17914653
Anesth Analg. 1995 Apr;80(4):718-23
7893024
Anesth Analg. 2004 Jan;98(1):166-172
14693613
Br J Anaesth. 1986 Jun;58(6):615-9
3707799
Anesth Analg. 1993 Jan;76(1):182-91
8380316
Colorectal Dis. 2007 Sep;9(7):584-98; discussion 598-600
17506795
Dig Surg. 2003;20(4):285-9
12748432
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Aug;106(2):227-33
16055569
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
3802833
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1999 Apr;16(4):236-45
10234493
Arthroscopy. 2002 Jan;18(1):76-81
11774146
Anesth Analg. 2000 Dec;91(6):1436-40
11093995
Anesth Analg. 2004 Oct;99(4):1173-1179
15385371
Br J Anaesth. 1991 Jun;66(6):703-12
2064886
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003 Nov;126(5):1271-8
14665996
J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Dec;203(6):914-32
17116561
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1989 Nov;71(6):394-6
2604350
Arthroscopy. 2003 Oct;19(8):855-61
14551548
Anesth Analg. 2001 Jan;92(1):189-93
11133625
Br J Surg. 2001 Mar;88(3):357-9
11260098
Anesthesiology. 2007 Sep;107(3):369-71
17721238
Br J Anaesth. 1989 Aug;63(2):189-95
2669908