Free
Clinical Science  |   March 1995
Intraperitoneal Versus Interpleural Morphine or Bupivacaine for Pain after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy 
Author Notes
  • (Schulte-Steinberg, Weninger) Consultant of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat, Klinikum Grosshadern, Munchen, Germany.
  • (Jokisch, Hofstetter, Misera) Doctoral Student, Department of Anesthesiology, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat, Klinikum Grosshadern, Munchen, Germany.
  • (Lange) Privatdozent, Department of Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat, Klinikum Grosshadern, Munchen. Current position: Schlosspark-Klinik, Berlin, Germany.
  • (Stein) Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Received from the Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat. Klinikum Grosshadern, Munchen, Germany. Submitted for publication June 30, 1994. Accepted for publication November 10, 1994. Supported in part by Fa. Braun, Melsungen, Germany, and by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant RO1 NS32466.
  • Address reprint requests to Dr. Stein: Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Tower 711, Baltimore, Maryland 21287–8711.
Article Information
Clinical Science
Clinical Science   |   March 1995
Intraperitoneal Versus Interpleural Morphine or Bupivacaine for Pain after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy 
Anesthesiology 3 1995, Vol.82, 634-640. doi:
Anesthesiology 3 1995, Vol.82, 634-640. doi:
Key words: Analgesics, opioid: morphine. Anesthetic techniques: interpleural; intraperitoneal. Anesthetics, local: bupivacaine. Pain: postoperative. Receptors, opioid: peripheral. Surgery, laparoscopic: cholecystectomy.
OPIOID analgesia has been associated with the activation of opioid receptors within the central nervous system. However, recent evidence indicates that potent analgesic effects can be elicited by activation of opioid receptors in peripheral tissues in animals and in humans. Such receptors are localized on peripheral sensory nerves, [1,2 ] where they can modulate both afferent [3,4 ] and efferent [5–7 ] neuronal functions to eventually result in antinociception. [8 ].
In humans, peripheral opioid effects have been most extensively studied and convincingly demonstrated after intraarticular administration of morphine. [9–23 ] Other modes of administration include the perineural and the interpleural routes, but the results are equivocal. [24–26 ] The current study was designed to (1) examine the efficacy of intraperitoneal injection of opioids. (2) compare this to interpleural administration, and (3) compare opioid with local anesthetic effects under both conditions.
Materials and Methods
Patients
The project was approved by the institutional review board of the Klinikum Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, and written informed consent was obtained from each patient before surgery. One hundred ten inpatients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis were studied. The surgery was performed using standard techniques as described. [27 ] The criteria for exclusion from the study were ASA physical status 3 or greater or a history of pleuritis in part 2 of the study. All patients received clorazepate dipotassium (a benzodiazepine, 20 mg orally per patient) 1 h before surgery. Anesthesia was induced with thiopental (3–5 mg/kg), fentanyl (1.5 micro gram/kg), and succinylcholine (1 mg/kg) and was maintained with oxygen/nitrous oxide, isoflurane (0.6–1.5%), vecuronium (0.1–0.15 mg/kg), and supplemental fentanyl (maximum 3 micro gram/kg). End-expiratory PCO2was monitored and maintained at approximately 35 mmHg throughout the procedure.
Protocols
The test solutions were drawn into two coded syringes by a nurse and given to the investigators, who did not know their contents. The patients were randomly allocated to the groups.
Part 1.
At the conclusion of surgery but before the laparoscope was removed, one of the test solutions was sprayed intraperitoneally onto the gallbladder bed (5 ml) and onto the subphrenic surface of the liver (15 ml) via a special catheter by use of an air pressure-driven apparatus (Tissomat, Immuno, Vienna, Austria) to achieve a homogeneous distribution of the solution in the desired areas: group 1 (n = 18) received intraperitoneal morphine (1 mg in 20 ml of normal saline) and intravenous normal saline (20 ml). To control for possible central effects due to systemic absorption of morphine, group 2 (n = 17) received intraperitoneal saline (20 ml) and intravenous morphine (1 mg in 20 ml saline). Group 3 (n = 15) received 0.25% intraperitoneal bupivacaine (20 ml) and intravenous saline (20 ml). Thereafter, anesthesia was terminated.
Part 2.
After removal of the laparoscope, the effects of muscle relaxants were reversed, and patients were allowed to breathe spontaneously while general anesthesia was maintained. While supine and in 30 degrees reverse Trendelenburg's position, an interpleural catheter (Braun, Melsungen, Germany) was placed in the right midaxillary line above the fifth rib using a modification of the originally described technique. [28 ] The catheter was advanced 5 cm toward the shoulder, and the following test solutions were injected: Group 4 (n = 20) received interpleural morphine (1.5 mg in 30 ml saline) and intravenous saline (30 ml). Group 5 (n = 20) received interpleural saline (30 ml) and intravenous morphine (1.5 mg in 30 ml saline). Group 6 (n = 20) received 0.25% interpleural bupivacaine (30 ml) and intravenous saline (30 ml). Thereafter, the interpleural catheter was removed, and general anesthesia was terminated. All doses were chosen based on our previous studies investigating peripheral analgesic actions of opioids in humans. [9,10,25 ].
Assessment of Pain, Vital Signs, and Side Effects
Postoperative pain was assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), a numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 1 to 100, and a German version of the McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ). [29,30 ] Patients were asked about the location of pain (shoulder, incision, and/or intraabdominal). These assessments were made hourly for the first 6 h and once after 24 h. Supplemental analgesic medication was available upon request and was recorded at the above intervals. The following drugs were used: intravenous metamizol (a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory analgesic) and intravenous piritramide (an opioid agonist) during the first 3 h in the recovery room, and intramuscular tramadol (an opioid agonist and monoamine reuptake-inhibitor) thereafter on the surgical wards. Heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and side effects (pruritus, urinary retention, nausea) were recorded. Sedation was assessed using a five-point scale consisting of the descriptors “awake, oriented,”“awake, disoriented,”“arousable upon command,”“arousable upon painful stimuli,” and “not arousable.”.
Data Analysis
To score the VAS, the distance (mm) from the “no pain” end to the mark provided by the patient was measured. The MPQ was scored as described previously. [31 ] The number of words chosen (NWC) and the total pain rating index (PRI(t)) are given. Each patient's total consumption of supplemental analgesics in 24 h was calculated. Comparisons between groups and post hoc testing were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests, respectively. For multiple comparisons, the significance level was corrected according to Bonferroni. [32 ].
Results
Part I
There were no significant differences in patient demographics (Table 1), vital signs, pain location, or any of the pain scores (Figure 1) between groups. Neither intraoperative (group 1, 0.24 plus/minus 0.06 mg; group 2, 0.26 plus/minus 0.04 mg; group 3, 0.24 plus/minus 0.06 mg fentanyl) nor postoperative supplemental analgesic consumption (Figure 2) was significantly different. Forty-three of 50 patients did not complain of shoulder pain up to 6 h after surgery. Shoulder pain was rated “low” by five patients and “moderate” by two patients. At 24 h, 24 patients reported shoulder pain, which was rated “low” by 16, “moderate” by 2, and “severe” by 6 patients. These patients were equally distributed among the groups. During the first hour, four patients were arousable upon verbal command, and two were disoriented. By 3 h, all patients were awake and oriented. None of the above-mentioned side effects were reported in any group.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Patients Receiving Intraperitoneal Morphine (Group 1), Saline (Group 2), or Bupivacaine (Group 3) and of Patients Receiving Interpleural Morphine (Group 4), Saline (Group 5), or Bupivacaine (Group 6)
Image not available
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Patients Receiving Intraperitoneal Morphine (Group 1), Saline (Group 2), or Bupivacaine (Group 3) and of Patients Receiving Interpleural Morphine (Group 4), Saline (Group 5), or Bupivacaine (Group 6)
×
Figure 1. Pain scores as determined by the visual analog scale in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1, squares), saline (group 2, circles), or bupivacaine (group 3, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 1. Pain scores as determined by the visual analog scale in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1, squares), saline (group 2, circles), or bupivacaine (group 3, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 1. Pain scores as determined by the visual analog scale in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1, squares), saline (group 2, circles), or bupivacaine (group 3, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
×
Figure 2. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1), saline (group 2), or bupivacaine (group 3). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 2. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1), saline (group 2), or bupivacaine (group 3). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 2. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1), saline (group 2), or bupivacaine (group 3). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
×
Part 2
There were no significant differences in patient demographics (Table 1), vital signs, or location of pain between groups. Pain scores were not different between groups 4 and 5 (Figure 3). All pain scores were less in group 6 (interpleural bupivacaine) than in groups 4 or 5 between 1 and 6 h postoperatively (Figure 3). The differences were significant (P < 0.05) between 1 and 3 h as determined by VAS and NRS and between 1 and 6 h as determined by NWC and PRI(t). The intraoperative dose of fentanyl was not different between groups (group 4, 0.22 plus/minus 0.01; group 5, 0.25 plus/minus 0.02; group 6, 0.23 plus/minus 0.02 mg). The supplemental consumption of metamizol and tramadol was significantly less (P < 0.05) in group 6 than in groups 4 or 5 (Figure 4). Fifty-three of 60 patients did not complain of shoulder pain up to 6 h after surgery. Shoulder pain was rated “low” by three, “moderate” by one, and “severe” by two patients. At 24 h, 23 patients reported shoulder pain, which was rated “low” by 14, “moderate” by 5, and “severe” by 2 patients. These patients were equally distributed among the groups. During the first hour, 16 patients were awake and disoriented. By 4 h, all patients were awake and oriented. None of the above-mentioned side effects were reported in any group.
Figure 3. Pain scores as described by the visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, number of words chosen, and total pain rating index [31 ] in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4, squares), saline (group 5, circles), or bupivacaine (group 6, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 3. Pain scores as described by the visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, number of words chosen, and total pain rating index [31] in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4, squares), saline (group 5, circles), or bupivacaine (group 6, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 3. Pain scores as described by the visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, number of words chosen, and total pain rating index [31 ] in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4, squares), saline (group 5, circles), or bupivacaine (group 6, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
×
Figure 4. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4), saline (group 5), or bupivacaine (group 6). Mean + SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 4. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4), saline (group 5), or bupivacaine (group 6). Mean + SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 4. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4), saline (group 5), or bupivacaine (group 6). Mean + SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
×
Discussion
This study shows that neither intraperitoneal nor interpleural morphine (0.005%) in the doses studied produces significant analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, whereas 0.25% interpleural bupivacaine is effective but not 0.25% intraperitoneal bupivacaine. Shoulder pain was not prevalent in the majority of patients during the first 6 h. By 24 h, about half of the patients complained of shoulder pain, which was rated “low” by about one-third of all patients. No side effects occurred that could be related to the drugs under investigation.
Intraperitoneal local anesthetics have been shown to reduce pain after laparoscopic surgery. [33–35 ] Two of these reports [33,34 ] have studied gynecologic procedures. These are associated with a high incidence of shoulder pain, which is thought to be related to diaphragmatic irritation by intraperitoneal carbon dioxide. Accordingly, we monitored the localization of pain and, in anticipation, injected drugs into the subdiaphragmatic area. However, we found a low incidence of shoulder pain in all treatment groups. Therefore, we may have failed to detect effects of intraperitoneal bupivacaine due to a lower intensity or different characteristics of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Another important consideration is the amount of drug delivered to the surgical site. Chundrigar et al. [35 ] successfully applied 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine onto the gallbladder bed, whereas we injected only 5 ml onto the gallbladder bed and 15 ml into the right subdiaphragmatic area. Other studies that found no analgesic effects of intraperitoneal local anesthetics after open [36 ] or laparoscopic [37 ] cholecystectomy also have attributed their findings to insufficient dosage. Our failure to detect analgesic effects of either intraperitoneal bupivacaine or intraperitoneal morphine may have similar reasons. Thus, in the current study, we applied only 0.25 mg morphine onto the surgical site, whereas previous studies examining intraarticular injections have used between 0.5 and 6 mg. [9,11 ] Another important difference between the intraarticular and the intraperitoneal route is that the joint is a closed space, whereas intraperitoneal drugs may be rapidly diluted in the peritoneal cavity. Therefore, it may be important to administer a sufficient quantity of drug onto the site of tissue injury, which we may not have achieved by our intraperitoneal injections. Finally, the injured tissue (synovia vs. peritoneum and liver), the degree and nature of inflammation, the milieu (synovial vs. intraperitoneal fluid), and the afferent nervous systems (somatic vs. visceral) are clearly different.
Results from the second part of our study agree with those of previous reports examining the interpleural administration of both drugs. [25,38 ] Local anesthetics given interpleurally are clearly effective in reducing pain after open cholecystectomy and in patients with unilateral rib fractures. [38 ] We have shown that bupivacaine is equally efficient after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Similar to the other indications studied, [38 ] its duration of action is at least 6 h in the current situation. Morphine given interpleurally, however, was ineffective, which is consistent with our previous experience. [25 ] A significant drawback of this former investigation was that we studied patients undergoing thoracotomy who may have lost the drug through the chest drains. Because this limitation was eliminated in the current study, we chose a smaller total dose of morphine (1.5 mg vs. 2.5 mg in [25 ]), which was aimed at yielding the same concentration as that in our intraperitoneal solution. Compared to our previous studies of intraarticular injections, however, the current amount of morphine is still three times the smallest effective intraarticular dose (0.5 mg [9 ]). Thus, it is unlikely that the current lack of effect is exclusively attributable to the dose.
An additional issue that has to be considered is that morphine's access to opioid receptors may be restricted in the pleural cavity. Peripheral antinociceptive effects of opioid agonists are brought about by an interaction with opioid receptors located on peripheral sensory nerves. [1,2,8 ] Accordingly, we hypothesized that interpleural morphine may activate opioid receptors on intercostal nerves. However, in the absence of inflammation, such neuronal receptors are not easily accessible because the intact perineurium significantly impedes the penetration of macromolecules. [39 ] In particular, tight intercellular contacts at the innermost layer of the perineurium act as a diffusion barrier for hydrophilic substances such as morphine. [40,41 ] Thus, in the noninflamed pleural cavity, the transperineurial passage may be difficult for hydrophilic morphine but not for lipophilic bupivacaine.
Morphine applied intraarticularly, however, faces a different situation. Patients undergoing knee surgery have intraarticular inflammation. [42 ] The perineurial barrier is disrupted in inflamed tissue, [40,41 ] and consequently, the access of opioid agonists to sensory neurons is facilitated. [39 ] Moreover, the knee joint contains a large number of free sensory nerve endings that lack perineurium at their very tips. [43,44 ] Consistently, the majority, although not all, [45–47 ] of the studies examining intraarticular morphine have demonstrated significant analgesic effects. [9–23 ].
In conclusion, we have found that neither 0.25% bupivacaine nor 0.005% morphine given intraperitoneally is effective for pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which may be attributable to an insufficient dose and a rapid dilution of both drugs within the peritoneal cavity. Interpleural bupivacaine but not morphine produces analgesia after this surgery. Morphine's lack of effect in the noninflamed pleural cavity is likely due to an intact perineurial barrier that restricts the penetration of the opioid to its receptors on intercostal nerves.
The authors thank Sven Klasing, for statistical analyses.
REFERENCES
Stein C, Hassan AHS, Przewlocki R, Gramsch C, Peter K, Herz A: Opioids from immunocytes interact with receptors on sensory nerves to inhibit nociception in inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:5935-5939, 1990.
Hassan AHS, Ableitner A, Stein C, Herz A: Inflammation of the rat paw enhances axonal transport of opioid receptors in the sciatic nerve and increases their density in the inflamed tissue. Neuroscience 55:185-195, 1993.
Russell NJW, Schaible HG, Schmidt RF: Opiates inhibit the discharges of fine afferent units from inflamed knee joint of the cat. Neurosci Lett 76:107-112, 1987.
Andreev N, Urban L, Dray A: Opioids suppress spontaneous activity of polymodal nociceptors in rat paw skin induced by ultraviolet irradiation. Neuroscience 58:793-798, 1994.
Brodin E, Gazelius B, Panopoulos P, Olgart L: Morphine inhibits substance P release from peripheral sensory nerve endings. Acta Physiol Scand 117:567-570, 1983.
Yaksh TL: Substance P release from knee joint afferent terminals: Modulation by opioids. Brain Res 458:319-324, 1988.
Yonehara N, Imai Y, Chen J-Q, Takiuchi S, Inoki R: Influence of opioids on substance P release evoked by antidromic stimulation of primary afferent fibers in the hind instep of rats. Regul Pept 38:13-22, 1992.
Bartho L, Stein C, Herz A: Involvement of capsaicin-sensitive neurones in hyperalgesia and enhanced opioid antinociception in inflammation. Naunyn Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol 342:666-670, 1990.
Stein C, Comisel K, Haimerl E, Lehrberger K, Yassouridis A, Herz A, Peter K: Analgesic effect of intraarticular morphine after arthroscopic knee surgery. N Engl J Med 325:1123-1126, 1991.
Khoury GF, Chen ACN, Garland DE, Stein C: Intraarticular morphine, bupivacaine and morphine/bupivacaine for pain control after knee videoarthroscopy. ANESTHESIOLOGY 77:263-266, 1992.
Heard SO, Edwards WT, Ferrari D, Hanna D, Wong PD, Liland A, Willock MW: Analgesic effect of intraarticular bupivacaine or morphine after arthroscopic knee surgery: A randomized, prospective, double-blind study. Anesth Analg 74:822-826, 1992.
Joshi GP, McCarroll SM, Cooney CM, Blunnie WP, O'Brien TM, Lawrence AJ: Intra-articular morphine for pain relief after knee arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg 74-B:749-751, 1992.
Lawrence AJ, Joshi GP, Michalkiewicz A, Blunnie WP, Moriarty DC: Evidence for analgesia mediated by peripheral opioid receptors in inflamed synovial tissue. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 43:351-355, 1992.
Joshi GP, McCarroll SM, Brady OH, Hurson BJ, Walsh G: Intra-articular morphine for pain relief after anterior cruciate ligament repair. Br J Anaesth 70:87-88, 1993.
Joshi GP, McCarroll SM, O'Brien TM, Lenane P: Intraarticular analgesia following knee arthroscopy. Anesth Analg 76:333-336, 1993.
Joshi GP, McCarroll SM, McSwiney M, O'Rourke P, Hurson BJ: Effects of intraarticular morphine on analgesic requirements after anterior cruciate ligament repair. Reg Anesth 18:254-257, 1993.
McSwiney MM, Joshi GP, Kenny P, McCarroll SM: Analgesia following arthroscopic knee surgery: A controlled study of intra-articular morphine, bupivacaine or both combined. Anaesth Intensive Care 21:201-203, 1993.
Allen GC, Amand MAS, Lui ACP, Johnson DH, Lindsay MP: Postarthroscopy analgesia with intraarticular bupivacaine/morphine: A randomized clinical trial. ANESTHESIOLOGY 79:475-480, 1993.
De Andres J, Bellver J, Barrera L, Febre E, Bolmches R: A comparative study of analgesia after knee surgery with intraarticular bupivacaine, intraarticular and lumbar plexus block. Anesth Analg 77:727-730, 1993.
Dalsgaard J, Felsby S, Juelsgaard P, Froekjaer J: Low-dose intraarticular morphine analgesia in day case knee arthroscopy: A randomized double-blinded prospective study. Pain 56:151-154, 1994.
Boden BP, Fassler S, Cooper S, Marchetto PA, Moyer RA: Analgesic effect of intraarticular morphine, bupivacaine, and morphine/bupivacaine after arthroscopic knee surgery. Arthroscopy 10:104-107, 1994.
Niemi L, Pitkanen M, Tuominen M, Bjorkenheim J-M, Rosenberg PH: Intraarticular morphine for pain relief after knee arthroscopy performed under regional anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 38:402-405, 1994.
Haynes TK, Appadurai IR, Power I, Rosen M, Grant A: Intraarticular morphine and bupivacaine analgesia after arthroscopic knee surgery. Anaesthesia 49:54-56, 1994.
Raez H, Gunning K, Della Santa D, Forster A: Evaluation of the effect of perineuronal morphine on the quality of postoperative analgesia after axillary plexus block: A randomized double-blind study. Anesth Analg 72:769-772, 1994.
Welte M, Haimerl E, Groh J, Briegel J, Sunder-Plassmann L, Herz A, Peter K, Stein C: Effect of interpleural morphine on postoperative pain and pulmonary function after thoracotomy. Br J Anaesth 69:637-639, 1992.
Bourke DL, Furman WR: Improved postoperative analgesia with morphine added to axillary block solution. J Clin Anesth 5:114-117, 1993.
Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G, Levard H: Coelioscopic cholecystectomy: Preliminary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 211:60-62, 1990.
Reiestad F, Stromskag KE: Interpleural catheter in the management of postoperative pain: A preliminary report. Reg Anesth 11:89-91, 1986.
Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, Foley KM, Gracely RH, Reading AE: Pain measurement: An overview. Pain 22:1-31, 1985.
Stein C, Mendl G: The german counterpart to McGill pain questionnaire. Pain 32:251-255, 1988.
Melzack R: The McGill pain questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1:277-299, 1975.
Zar JH: Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1984.
Narchi P, Benhamou D, Fernandez H: Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for shoulder pain after day-case laparoscopy. Lancet 338:1569-1570, 1991.
Helvacioglu A, Weis R: Operative laparoscopy and postoperative pain relief. Fertil Steril 57:548-552, 1992.
Chundrigar T, Morris R, Hedges AR, Stamatakis JD: Intraperitoneal bupivacaine for effective pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75:437-439, 1993.
Wallin G, Cassuto J, Hogstrom S, Hedner T: Influence of intraperitoneal anesthesia on pain and the sympathoadrenal response to abdominal surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 32:553-558, 1988.
Rademaker BMP, Kalkman CJ, Odoom JA, De Wit L, Ringers J: Intraperitoneal local anaesthetics after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Effects on postoperative pain, metabolic responses and lung function. Br J Anaesth 72:263-266, 1994.
Murphy DF: Interpleural analgesia. Br J Anaesth 71:426-434, 1993.
Antonijevic I, Mousa SA, Schafer M, Stein C: Perineurial defect and peripheral opioid analgesia in inflammation. J Neurosci 15:165-172, 1995.
Rechthand E, Rapoport SI: Regulation of the microenvironment of peripheral nerve. Role of the blood-nerve barrier. Progr Neurobiol 28:303-343, 1987.
Olsson Y, Microenvironment of the peripheral nervous system under normal and pathological conditions. Crit Rev Neurobiol 5:265-314, 1990.
Stein C, Hassan AHS, Lehrberger K, Giefing J, Yassouridis A: Local analgesic effect of endogenous opioid peptides. Lancet 342:321-324, 1993.
Halata Z, Rettig T, Schulze W: The ultrastructure of sensory nerve endings in the human knee joint capsule. Anat Embryol 172:265-275, 1985.
Heppelmann B, Messlinger K, Neiss WF, Schmidt RF: Ultrastructural three-dimensional reconstruction of group III and group IV sensory nerve endings (“free nerve endings”) in the knee joint capsule of the cat: Evidence for multiple receptive sites. J Comp Neurol 292:103-116, 1990.
Raja SN, Dickstein RE, Johnson CA: Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects of intraarticular bupivacaine and morphine following arthroscopic knee surgery. ANESTHESIOLOGY 77:1143-1147, 1992.
Laurent SC, Nolan JP, Pozo JL, Jones CJ: Addition of morphine to intra-articular bupivacaine does not improve analgesia after day-case arthroscopy. Br J Anaesth 72:170-173, 1994.
Dierking GW, Ostergaard HT, Dissing CK, Kristensen JE, Dahl JB: Analgesic effect of intra-articular morphine after arthroscopic meniscectomy. Anaesthesia 49:627-629, 1994.
Figure 1. Pain scores as determined by the visual analog scale in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1, squares), saline (group 2, circles), or bupivacaine (group 3, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 1. Pain scores as determined by the visual analog scale in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1, squares), saline (group 2, circles), or bupivacaine (group 3, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 1. Pain scores as determined by the visual analog scale in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1, squares), saline (group 2, circles), or bupivacaine (group 3, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
×
Figure 2. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1), saline (group 2), or bupivacaine (group 3). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 2. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1), saline (group 2), or bupivacaine (group 3). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
Figure 2. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving intraperitoneal morphine (group 1), saline (group 2), or bupivacaine (group 3). Mean plus/minus SEM is given.
×
Figure 3. Pain scores as described by the visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, number of words chosen, and total pain rating index [31 ] in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4, squares), saline (group 5, circles), or bupivacaine (group 6, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 3. Pain scores as described by the visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, number of words chosen, and total pain rating index [31] in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4, squares), saline (group 5, circles), or bupivacaine (group 6, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 3. Pain scores as described by the visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, number of words chosen, and total pain rating index [31 ] in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4, squares), saline (group 5, circles), or bupivacaine (group 6, triangles). Mean plus/minus SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
×
Figure 4. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4), saline (group 5), or bupivacaine (group 6). Mean + SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 4. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4), saline (group 5), or bupivacaine (group 6). Mean + SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
Figure 4. Supplemental consumption of metamizol (open bars) and tramadol (hatched bars) in patients receiving interpleural morphine (group 4), saline (group 5), or bupivacaine (group 6). Mean + SEM are given. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test) between group 6 and the other two groups.
×
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Patients Receiving Intraperitoneal Morphine (Group 1), Saline (Group 2), or Bupivacaine (Group 3) and of Patients Receiving Interpleural Morphine (Group 4), Saline (Group 5), or Bupivacaine (Group 6)
Image not available
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Patients Receiving Intraperitoneal Morphine (Group 1), Saline (Group 2), or Bupivacaine (Group 3) and of Patients Receiving Interpleural Morphine (Group 4), Saline (Group 5), or Bupivacaine (Group 6)
×