ReviewIntraperitoneal ropivacaine instillation versus no intraperitoneal ropivacaine instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

- As Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) becomes mainstream for surgery.
- Our outcomes are important for hospital where laparoscopic cholecystectomies was performed as day-surgery.
- It provides surgeons and anaesthesiologists with further opportunity to improve patient comfort.

BackgroundPain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To assess the benefits and disadvantage of intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review. We analysed the data with Review Manager 5 analysis.Main resultsWe identified 12 suitable studies. A total of 853 participants were randomised to intraperitoneal ropivacaine instillation (442 participants) versus “no intraperitoneal ropivacaine instillation” (411 participants). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the ropivacaine instillation group than the control group at 4-8 h (10 trials; 751 participants; MD -0.64 cm; 95% CI -0.86 to −0.43; p < 0.00001) and at 9-24 h (9 trials; 582 participants; MD -0.47 cm; 95% CI -0.66 to −0.28; p < 0.00001).The proportion of people who developed the adverse events were less in the ropivacaine instillation group than the control group(RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.79; p = 0.0002). There was no significant difference in the Post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay time between the two groups (3 trials; 197 participants; MD -3.77 min; 95% CI -10.24 to 2.69). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Further trials are necessary.