Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. May 16, 2021; 13(5): 137-154
Published online May 16, 2021. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v13.i5.137
Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized evidence comparing general anesthesia vs regional anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Peter Asaad, Adam O’Connor, Shahab Hajibandeh, Shahin Hajibandeh
Peter Asaad, Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester M23 9LT, United Kingdom
Adam O’Connor, Department of General Surgery, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Blackburn BB2 3HH, United Kingdom
Shahab Hajibandeh, Department of General Surgery, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl LL18 5UJ, United Kingdom
Shahin Hajibandeh, Department of General Surgery, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford HR1 2ER, United Kingdom
Author contributions: Asaad P and Hajibandeh Shahi designed the research study; Asaad P, O’Connor A and Hajibandeh Shaha collected the data for the meta-analysis; Hajibandeh Shaha and Hajibandeh Shahi analysed and interpreted the data; Hajibandeh Shaha and Hajibandeh Shahi did the statistical analysis; Asaad P, Hajibandeh Shaha and Hajibandeh Shahi wrote the article; all authors critically revised the article and provided final approval for the article.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflict of interest.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Shahin Hajibandeh, MD, Senior Researcher, Surgeon, Department of General Surgery, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, Hereford HR1 2ER, United Kingdom. shahin_hajibandeh@yahoo.com
Received: December 11, 2020
Peer-review started: December 11, 2020
First decision: January 29, 2021
Revised: February 9, 2021
Accepted: April 11, 2021
Article in press: April 11, 2021
Published online: May 16, 2021
Processing time: 147 Days and 5.5 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background

In an effort to further reduce the morbidity and mortality profile of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the outcomes of such procedure under regional anesthesia (RA) have been evaluated.

Research motivation

In the context of cholecystectomy, combining a minimally invasive surgical procedure with a minimally invasive anesthetic technique can potentially be associated with less postoperative pain and earlier ambulation.

Research objectives

The main objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate comparative outcomes of RA and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Research methods

A comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of outcomes were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards.

Research results

Thirteen RCTs enrolling 1111 patients were included. The study populations in the RA and GA groups were of comparable age (P = 0.41), gender (P = 0.98) and body mass index (P = 0.24). The conversion rate from RA to GA was 2.3%. RA was associated with significantly less postoperative pain at 4 h [mean difference (MD): -2.22, P < 0.00001], 8 h (MD: -1.53, P = 0.0006), 12 h (MD: -2.08, P < 0.00001), and 24 h (MD: -0.90, P < 0.00001) compared to GA. Moreover, it was associated with significantly lower rate of nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR): 0.40, P < 0.0001]. However, RA significantly increased postoperative headaches (RR: 4.69, P = 0.03), and urinary retention (RR: 2.73, P = 0.03). The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis was conclusive for most outcomes, with the exception of a risk of type 1 error for headache and urinary retention and a risk of type 2 error for total procedure time.

Research conclusions

Our findings indicate that RA may be an attractive anesthetic modality for day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy considering its associated lower postoperative pain and nausea and vomiting compared to GA. However, it associated risk of urinary retention and headache and lack of knowledge on its impact on procedure-related outcomes do not justify using RA as the first line anaesthetic choice for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Research perspectives

The available RCTs have not provided appropriate data about the indication for procedure, procedure related difficulties, and procedure related complications. We encourage future randomised studies to evaluate the comparative procedure related outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy under LA and GA.