Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized evidence comparing general anesthesia vs regional anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

• Published in: World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy 2021-05, Vol.13 (5), p.137-154
• Main Authors: Asaad, Peter, O’Connor, Adam, Hajibandeh, Shahab, Hajibandeh, Shahin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Meta-Analysis
• ISSN: 1948-5190; 1948-5190
• DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v13.i5.137

BACKGROUNDIn 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. 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. AIMTo evaluate comparative outcomes of RA and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODSA comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials 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. RESULTSThirteen randomized controlled trials 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. CONCLUSIONOur 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, its 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 anesthetic choice for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.