Pre-, Peri-, and Postoperative Intravenous Ropivacaine versus that of Lidocaine for Analgesia after Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery of Left Colon Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis

Abstract

Purposes

Pre-, peri-, and postoperative intravenous lidocaine are reported effective in the management of postoperative pain in laparoscopic colorectal surgery but until the time, that of ropivacaine is not tested for the same. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effectiveness of pre-, peri-, and postoperative intravenous ropivacaine against that of lidocaine on the postoperative pain, bowel function recoveries, and hospital stays in patients who underwent surgery of left colon cancer.

Materials and methods

Data regarding total doses of fentanyl required, bowel function recoveries, surgical-related complications, and hospital stays of 367 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery of left colon cancer were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Patients received pre-, peri-, and postoperative intravenous normal saline (NS cohort, n = 104), or that of lidocaine (LC cohort, n = 145), or that of ropivacaine (RC cohort, n = 118).

Results

Fewer dose of fentanyl was required in patients of RC cohort than those of NS (9 doses/patient vs. 11 doses/patient, p < .0001, q = 27.445) and LC (9 doses/patient vs. 10 doses/patient, p < .0001, q = 9.911) cohorts. Patients of the RC cohort had less time to first drink, first bowel movement, full diet, and hospital stay than those of NS and LC cohorts (p < .05 and q > 3.329 for all).

Conclusions

Pre-, peri-, and postoperative intravenous ropivacaine are safe and effective than that of normal saline or lidocaine in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery of left colon cancer.

Keywords:

• Bowel functions
• laparoscopy
• left colon cancer surgery
• lidocaine
• postoperative pain
• ropivacaine

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful for the medical and non-medical staff of the No. 2 People's Hospital of Suzhou Xiangcheng District, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China and the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The designed protocol (XSU/CL/12/2020 dated 30 January 2020) of the established study was approved by the anesthesia review boards of the No. 2 People's Hospital of Suzhou Xiangcheng District and the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University and the Chinese Society of Anesthesiology.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Authors’ contributions

Both authors read and approved the manuscript for publication. XG was project administrator, contributed to methodology, investigation, resources, and literature review of the study. CX contributed to formal analysis, conceptualization, data curation, and literature review of the study and draft, review, and edited the manuscript for intellectual content. The authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Table 2. Postoperative pain evaluation at resting stage.