Intraoperative infusion of lidocaine reduces postoperative fentanyl requirements in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

A Comparison among Score Systems for Discharging Patients from Recovery Rooms: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The recovery room (RR) is a hospital area where patients are monitored in the early postoperative period before being transferred to the surgical ward or other specialized units. The utilization of scores in the RR context facilitates the assignment of patients to the appropriate ward and directs necessary monitoring. Some scoring systems allow nurses to select patients who can be discharged directly to their homes.

AIM AND METHODS

The aim of this narrative review was to describe and compare the scoring systems employed to discharge postoperative patients from RR, with a focus on item characteristics.

RESULTS

Nine scoring systems were identified and discussed: the "Aldrete Score System" and its modified version, the "Respiration, Energy, Alertness, Circulation, Temperature Score", the "Post Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System", the "White and Song Score", the "Readiness for Discharge Assessment Tool", the "Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine Service Checklist", the "Post-Anesthetic Care Tool", the "Post-operative Quality Recovery Scale", and the "Discerning Post Anesthesia Readiness for Transition" instrument.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

To obtain a comprehensive overview, the items included in the scoring systems were compared. Despite the availability of guidelines for patients' discharge readiness from the RR, there is no universally recommended scoring system. Next-generation scores must be improved to ease their use, minimize errors, and increase safety. The main goals of the scores included in this narrative review were to be simple to use, feasible, intuitive, comprehensive, and flexible. However, these goals frequently conflict because patient assessment takes time, and a smart and comprehensive score may not consider some clinical parameters that may be crucial for the discharge decision. Therefore, further research should be conducted on this topic.

The use of lidocaine infusion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Being one of the most common abdominal surgical procedures, numerous techniques have been adapted to decrease post-operative pain post cholecystectomy. However, the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine in managing post operative pain after LC is still controversial, according to many recent studies. This study aims to detect the effectiveness of IV lidocaine compared to other medications in managing post-operative pain. PubMed, Scopes, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to June 2023, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was done. According to eligibility criteria, 14 studies (898 patients) were included in our study. The pooled results of the included studies showed that the pain score after 6, 12 and 24 h after the surgery was significantly lower in those who received IV lidocaine as a painkiller (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] 6H, mean difference [MD] = -1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.20, -0.20, P = 0.02; I2 = 98%, VAS 12H, MD = -0.90, 95% CI = -1.52, -0.29, P = 0.004; I2 = 96% and VAS 24H, MD = -0.86, 95% CI = -1.48, -0.24, P = 0.007; I2 = 92%). In addition, IV lidocaine is associated with a significant decrease in the opioid requirement after the surgery (opioid requirements, MD = -29.53, 95% CI = -55.41, -3.66, P = 0.03; I2 = 98%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting after the surgery between the two groups (nausea and vomiting, relative risk = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.57, 1.45, P = 0.69; I2 = 50%). Lidocaine infusion in LC is associated with a significant decrease in post operative pain and in opioid requirements after the surgery.

Efficacy of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We designed this study to evaluate the impact of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

In total, 98 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included and randomized. In the experimental group, intravenous lidocaine (bolus 1.5 mg/kg and continuous infusion 2 mg/kg/h) was administered intraoperatively additionally to the standard analgesia, whereas the control group received a matching placebo. Blinding existed at the level of both the patient and the investigator.

RESULTS

Our study failed to confirm any benefit in opioid consumption, during the postoperative period. Lidocaine resulted to reduced intraoperative systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure. Lidocaine administration did not change postoperative pain scores or the incidence of shoulder pain, at any time endpoint. Moreover, we did not identify any difference in terms of postoperative sedation levels and nausea rates.

CONCLUSION

Overall, lidocaine did not have any effect on postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Efficacy of Lidocaine Infusion in High-Risk Vascular Surgery—A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Single-Center Clinical Trial

Background: In perioperative pain control, adjuvants such as lidocaine can reduce opioid consumption in a specific type of surgery. The aim of this single-center prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial was to determine opioid consumption in the perioperative period in patients receiving continuous lidocaine infusion. Methods: Patients undergoing elective abdominal aorta and/or iliac arteries open surgery were randomized into two groups to receive 1% lidocaine or placebo at the same infusion rate based on ideal body weight (bolus of 0.15 mL/kg during the induction of anesthesia followed by continuous infusion of 0.2 mL/kg/h during surgery; postoperatively 0.1 mL/kg/h for 24 h) additionally to standard opioid analgesia. Results: Total opioid consumption within 24 h after surgery was 89.2 mg (95%CI 80.9–97.4) in the lidocaine and 113.1 mg (95%CI 102.5–123.6) in the placebo group (p = 0.0007). Similar findings were observed in opioid consumption intraoperatively (26.7 mg (95%CI 22.2–31.3) vs. 35.1 mg (95%CI 29.1–41.2), respectively, p = 0.029) and six hours postoperatively (47.5 mg (IQR 37.5–59.5) vs. 60 mg (IQR 44–83), respectively, p = 0.01). Conclusions: In high-risk vascular surgery, lidocaine infusion as an adjunct to standard perioperative analgesia is effective. It may decrease opioid consumption by more than 20% during the first 24 h after surgery, with no serious adverse effects noted during the study period.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be a way of reducing pain. A previous version of this Cochrane Review found very low-certainty evidence on the benefits and harms of the intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 19 January 2021 together with reference checking of studies retrieved. We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021. We contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, publication status, or relevance of outcome measure) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, for the review. We excluded non-randomised studies, and studies where the method of allocating participants to a treatment was not strictly random (e.g. date of birth, hospital record number, or alternation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, pain, return to activity and work, and non-serious adverse events. The analysis included both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevManWeb. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using predefined domains, graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-five completed trials were included, of which 76 trials contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. This included a total of 4957 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (2803 participants) and control (2154 participants). Most trials only included participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and those who were at low anaesthetic risk (ASA I and II). The most commonly used local anaesthetic agent was bupivacaine. Methods of instilling the local anaesthetic varied considerably between trials; this included location and timing of application. The control groups received 0.9% normal saline (69 trials), no intervention (six trials), or sterile water (two trials). One trial did not specify the control agent used. None of the trials provided information on follow-up beyond point of discharge from hospital. Only two trials were at low risk of bias. Seven trials received external funding, of these three were assessed to be at risk of conflicts of interest, a further 17 trials declared no funding. We are very uncertain about the effect intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control on mortality; zero mortalities in either group (8 trials; 446 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.34); 13 trials; 988 participants; discharge on same day of surgery (RR 1.43; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.20; 3 trials; 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of hospital stay (MD -0.10 days; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.01; 12 trials; 936 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on health-related quality of life, return to normal activity or return to work. Pain scores, as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), were lower in the intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation group compared to the control group at both four to eight hours (MD -0.99 cm VAS; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.79; 57 trials; 4046 participants; low-certainty of evidence) and nine to 24 hours (MD -0.68 cm VAS; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49; 52 trials; 3588 participants; low-certainty of evidence). In addition, we found two trials that were still ongoing, and one trial that was completed but with no published results. All three trials are registered on the WHO trial register.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and proportion of patients discharged on the same day of surgery because the certainty of evidence was very low. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude an increase in adverse events. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of stay in hospital after surgery. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic may reduce pain at up to 24 hours for low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be at low risk of systematic and random errors, should fully report mortality and side effects, and should focus on clinical outcomes such as quality of life.

The effect of systemic lidocaine on post-operative opioid consumption in ambulatory surgical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Ambulatory surgical procedures continue to grow in relevance to perioperative medicine. Clinical studies have examined the use of systemic lidocaine as a component of multimodal analgesia in various surgeries with mixed results. A quantitative review of the opioid-sparing effects of systemic lidocaine in ambulatory surgery has not been investigated. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of systemic lidocaine on postoperative analgesic outcomes in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.

Methods

We performed a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials in electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar) from their inception through February 2019. Included trials investigated the effects of intraoperative systemic lidocaine on postoperative analgesic outcomes, time to hospital discharge, and adverse events. Methodological quality was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and the level of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Data was combined in a meta-analysis using random-effects models.

Results

Five trials evaluating 297 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled effect of systemic lidocaine on postoperative opioid consumption at post-anesthesia care unit revealed a significant effect, weighted mean difference (95% CI) of − 4.23 (− 7.3 to 1.2, P = 0.007), and, at 24 h, weighted mean difference (95% CI) of − 1.91 (− 3.80 to − 0.03, P = 0.04) mg intravenous morphine equivalents. Postoperative pain control during both time intervals, postoperative nausea and vomiting reported at post anesthesia care unit, and time to hospital discharge were not different between groups. The incidence rate of self-limiting adverse events of the included studies is 0.007 (2/297).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that intraoperative systemic lidocaine as treatment for postoperative pain has a moderate opioid-sparing effect in post anesthesia care unit with limited effect at 24 h after ambulatory surgery. Moreover, the opioid-sparing effect did not impact the analgesia or the presence of nausea and vomiting immediately or 24 h after surgery. Clinical trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to further confirm the short-term analgesic benefit of systemic lidocaine following ambulatory surgery.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42019142229)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-021-00181-9.

Efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusions for pain relief in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Intravenous lidocaine, a potent local anesthetic with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, has been shown to be an effective adjunct that reduces intra- and postoperative opioid consumption and facilitates pain management in adults. While it shows promise for use in the pediatric population, limited evidence is available.

Objectives

To determine if general anesthesia with intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion versus general anesthesia without intravenous lidocaine infusion in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy decreased opioid requirements intra- and postoperatively.

Design

A single-center parallel single-masked randomized controlled study. A computer-generated blocked randomization list was used to allocate participants. The study was conducted between March 2019 and January 2020. Setting: Pediatric teaching hospital in Poland.

Participants

Seventy-four patients aged between 18 months and 18 years undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Seventy-one patients fulfilled the study requirements.

Intervention

Intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg over 5 min before induction of anesthesia followed by lidocaine infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/h intraoperatively. The infusion was discontinued before the patients’ transfer to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).

Primary outcome measure

The primary outcome measure was total nalbuphine requirement in milligrams during the first 24 h after surgery.

Secondary outcome measures

The secondary outcome measures were intraoperative fentanyl consumption, intraoperative sevoflurane consumption, time to the first rescue analgesic request, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h after surgery, frequency of side effects of lidocaine.

Results

Children (n = 74) aged 5–17 randomly allocated to receive intraoperative lidocaine infusion (n = 37) or no intervention (n = 37). Seventy-one were included in the analysis (35 in the study group and 36 in the control group). There was no difference in the cumulative dose of nalbuphine in the first 24 h after removal of the endotracheal tube between groups [median of 0.1061 (IQR: 0.0962–0.2222) mg/kg in the lidocaine group, compared to the control group median of 0.1325 (IQR: 0.0899–0.22020) mg/kg, p = 0.63].

Intraoperative fentanyl consumption was lower in the lidocaine group [median of 5.091 (IQR: 4.848–5.714) μg/kg] than in the control group [median of 5.969 (IQR: 5.000–6.748), p = 0.03].

Taking into account the additional doses administered based on clinical indications, the reduction in the requirement for fentanyl in the lidocaine group was even greater [median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0–0.952) vs 0.99 (IQR: 0.0–1.809) μg/kg, p = 0.01].

No difference was observed in the sevoflurane consumption between the two groups [median of 32.5 ml (IQR 25.0–43.0) in the lidocaine group vs median of 35.0 ml (IQR: 23.5–46.0) in the control group, p = 0.56].

The time to first analgesic request in the lidocaine group was prolonged [median of 55 (IQR: 40–110) min in the lidocaine group vs median of 40.5 (IQR: 28–65) min in the control group, p = 0.05].

There was no difference in the frequency of PONV between the two groups (48.57% in the lidocaine group vs 61.11% in the control group, p = 0.29).

No lidocaine related incidence of anaphylaxis, systemic toxicity, circulatory disturbances or neurological impairment was reported, during anesthesia or postoperative period.

Conclusions

Intraoperative systemic lidocaine administration reduced the intraoperative requirement for opioids in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. This effect was time limited, and hence did not affect opioid consumption in the first 24 h following discontinuation of lidocaine infusion.

Trial registration

NCT03886896.

Effect of intravenous administration of lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients: A randomized, controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone during gastroscopy might result in circulatory and respiratory depression. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients while the respiratory and haemodynamic stability were not compromised.

METHODS

Patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine + propofol (L + P) group or normal saline + propofol (NS + P) group. Subjects were initially administered intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in L + P group or equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in NS + P group. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of 1.0 μg sufentanil followed by injection of propofol in all patients. The induction dose of propofol for each individual patient was determined by the protocol of Dixon "up-and-down" method for both groups. The primary end point was the ED50 of propofol induction dose.

RESULTS

Totally, 48 patients were enrolled and completed this study. Compared with the NS + P group, the ED50 of propofol induction dose was significantly reduced in the L + P group (2.01 mg/kg vs. 1.69 mg/kg) (U = 61.5, p < 0.001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The addition of intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (registration No. ChiCTR1900024025, 23 June 2019).

Reducing the dose of neuromuscular blocking agents with adjuncts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute global shortages of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) threaten to impact adversely on perioperative and critical care. The use of pharmacological adjuncts may reduce NMBA dose. However, the magnitude of any putative effects remains unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database (1970-2020) for RCTs comparing use of pharmacological adjuncts for NMBAs. We excluded RCTs not reporting perioperative NMBA dose. The primary outcome was total NMBA dose used to achieve a clinically acceptable depth of neuromuscular block. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. Data are presented as the standardised mean difference (SMD); I² indicates percentage of variance attributable to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

From 3082 records, the full texts of 159 trials were retrieved. Thirty-one perioperative RCTs met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis (n=1962). No studies were conducted in critically ill patients. Reduction in NMBA dose was associated with use of magnesium (SMD: -1.10 [-1.44 to -0.76], P<0.001; I²=85%; GRADE=moderate), dexmedetomidine (SMD: -0.89 [-1.55 to -0.22]; P=0.009; I²=87%; GRADE=low), and clonidine (SMD: -0.67 [-1.13 to -0.22]; P=0.004; I²=0%; GRADE=low) but not lidocaine (SMD: -0.46 [-1.01 to -0.09]; P=0.10; I²=68%; GRADE=moderate). Meta-analyses for nicardipine, diltiazem, and dexamethasone were not possible owing to the low numbers of studies. We estimated that 30-50 mg kg^-1 magnesium preoperatively (8-15 mg kg h^-1 intraoperatively) reduces rocuronium dose by 25.5% (inter-quartile range, 14.7-31).

CONCLUSIONS

Magnesium, dexmedetomidine, and clonidine may confer a clinically relevant sparing effect on the required dose of neuromuscular block ing drugs in the perioperative setting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42020183969.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.

Interfascial Plane Blocks and Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery: A Narrative Review

Laparoscopic abdominal surgery has become a mainstay of modern surgical practice. Postoperative analgesia is an integral component of recovery following laparoscopic abdominal surgery and may be improved by regional anesthesia or intravenous lidocaine infusion. There is inconsistent evidence supporting the use of interfascial plane blocks, such as transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks, for patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery as evidenced by variable patterns of local anesthetic spread and conflicting results from studies comparing TAP blocks to local anesthetic infiltration of laparoscopic port sites and multimodal analgesia. Quadratus lumborum (QL) and erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks may provide greater areas of somatic analgesia as well as visceral analgesia, which may translate to more significant clinical benefits. Aside from the locations of the surgical incisions, it is unclear what other factors should be considered when choosing one regional technique over another or deciding to infuse lidocaine intravenously. We reviewed the current literature in attempt to clarify the roles of various regional anesthesia techniques for patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery and present one possible approach to evaluating postoperative pain.

The Analgesic and Emotional Response to Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and emotional response to intravenous lidocaine infusion compared with placebo in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded study, patients with PHN received 5 mg/kg intravenous lidocaine infusion or placebo. The primary outcome was pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale, Von Frey, and area of allodynia. Moreover, emotional status of anxiety and depression were evaluated by Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). Quality of life was assessed by Short Form Health Survey 36.

RESULTS

In total, 197 patients were enrolled and eligible data were collected from 183 of those patients. The Visual Analogue Scale scores were reduced to a minimum at 2 weeks (2.74, 2.99) after infusion, but no significant difference was found between the lidocaine and placebo groups. Similar changes were also found in mechanical pain threshold and area of allodynia. However, the lidocaine group was associated with a statistically significant reduction in consumption of analgesics with a relative risk of 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.24-17.16). Lidocaine infusion also significantly improved the anxiety and depression status; the values of mean change in anxiety and depression were 3.89 (95% CI, 1.43-6.35) and 4.3 (95% CI, 0.63-7.98), respectively, at 2 weeks. Moreover, improvement was exhibited in Short Form Health Survey 36 health status, with the mean change of 49.81 (95% CI, 28.17-71.46) at 1 week, in particular scores on vitality, physical and emotional role functioning, and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic response of 5 mg/kg lidocaine intravenous infusion is comparable to placebo in patients with PHN, but intravenous lidocaine infusion significantly reduced total analgesic consumption, and improved the overall emotional and health status.

Efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in improving post-operative nausea, vomiting and early recovery after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major peri-operative complication. It has numerous adverse consequences that seriously affect the post-operative recovery of patients. The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in improving PONV and recovery after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: Group L (lidocaine group) and Group C (control group). The patients in Group L received intravenous lidocaine throughout the operation, while patients in Group C were given a saline infusion. Vital signs, recovery time, extubation time, dosage of remifentanil, first flatus time and defecation time of each patient were recorded. The incidence of PONV after surgery was also recorded. The recovery of the patients was evaluated by using the quality of recovery score (QoR-40). The total dose of remifentanil was significantly lower in Group L (P<0.05). However, the recovery time and extubation time were shorter in Group C (P<0.05). The first flatus time and defecation time were longer in Group C (P<0.05). The mean arterial pressure and heart rate in Group L were lower and more stable (P<0.05). At 6 h after surgery, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in Group L vs. that in Group C (P<0.05). The QoR-40 score in Group C was significantly lower at 1 and 3 days after the operation compared with that in Group C (P<0.05). In conclusion, intravenous lidocaine administered to patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery may reduce PONV and supports their early recovery [trial registration number in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-IOR-17010782 (March 5, 2017)].

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults

BACKGROUND

The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.

Intravenous lidocaine infusion

Systemic lidocaine used in continuous infusion during the peri-operative period has analgesic, anti-hyperalgesic, as well as anti-inflammatory properties. This makes it capable of reducing the use of opioids and inhalational anaesthetics, and the early return of bowel function, and patient hospital stay. The aim of this narrative review was to highlight the pharmacology and indications for clinical application, along with new and interesting research areas. The clinical applications of peri-operative lidocaine infusion have been reviewed in several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses in patients undergoing open and laparoscopic abdominal procedures, ambulatory procedures, and other types of surgery. Peri-operative lidocaine infusion may be a useful analgesic adjunct in enhanced recovery protocols. Potential benefits of intravenous lidocaine in chronic post-surgical pain, post-operative cognitive dysfunction, and cancer recurrence are under investigation. Due to its immunomodulation properties over surgical stress, current evidence suggests that intravenous lidocaine could be used in the context of multimodal analgesia.

Intravenous lidocaine infusion for pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficiency and safety of intravenous infusion of lidocaine for pain management after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed (August 1966-2017), Medline (August 1966-2017), Embase (August 1980-2017), ScienceDirect (August 1985-2017), and the Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Fixed/random effect model was used according to the heterogeneity tested by I2 statistic. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata.11.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 5 RCTs were retrieved involving 274 patients. The present meta-analysis indicated that there were significant differences between groups in terms of visual analog scale scores at 12hours (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-0.743, 95% CI: -1.246 to -0.240, P = .004), 24hours (WMD=-0.712, 95% CI: -1.239 to -0.184, P = .008), and 48hours (WMD=-0.600, 95% CI: -0.972 to -0.229, P = .002) after LC. Significant differences were found regarding opioid consumption at 12hours (WMD=-3.136, 95% CI: -5.591 to -0.680, P = .012), 24hours (WMD=-4.739, 95% CI: -8.291 to -1.188, P = .009), and 48hours (WMD=-3.408, 95% CI: -5.489 to -1.326, P = .001) after LC.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine infusion significantly reduced postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption after LC. In addition, there were fewer adverse effects in the lidocaine groups. Higher quality RCTs are still required for further research.

A randomized crossover study of the effects of lidocaine on motor- and sensory-evoked potentials during spinal surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lidocaine has emerged as a useful adjuvant anesthetic agent for cases requiring intraoperative monitoring of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs). A previous retrospective study suggested that lidocaine could be used as a component of propofol-based intravenous anesthesia without adversely affecting MEP or SSEP monitoring, but did not address the effect of the addition of lidocaine on the MEP and SSEP signals of individual patients.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the intrapatient effects of the addition of lidocaine to balanced anesthesia on MEPs and SSEPs during multilevel posterior spinal fusion.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective, two-treatment, two-period crossover randomized controlled trial with a blinded primary outcome assessment.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Forty patients undergoing multilevel posterior spinal fusion were studied.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were MEP voltage thresholds and SSEP amplitudes. Secondary outcome measures included isoflurane concentrations and hemodynamic parameters.

METHODS

Each participant received two anesthetic treatments (propofol 50 mcg/kg/h and propofol 25 mcg/kg/h+lidocaine 1 mg/kg/h) along with isoflurane, ketamine, and diazepam. In this manner, each patient served as his or her own control. The order of administration of the two treatments was determined randomly.

RESULTS

There were no significant within-patient differences between MEP threshold voltages or SSEP amplitudes during the two anesthetic treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine may be used as a component of balanced anesthesia during multilevel spinal fusions without adversely affecting the monitoring of SSEPs or MEPs in individual patients.

Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative recovery following laparoscopic Cholecystectomy-A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Intravenous lidocaine infusion has been shown to facilitate postoperative recovery after major abdominal surgery. The current randomized controlled study was performed to assess the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on pain intensity, bowel function and cytokine response after larparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Eighty patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (bolus injection of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine at induction of anesthesia, then a continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h until the end of surgery) or an equal volume of saline. Patients, anesthesiologists, and study personnel were blinded, and anesthesia and multimodal perioperative analgesia were standardized. Blood cytokines were measured at scheduled times within 48 h. Pain scores, opioid consumption, time to first flatus and time to first bowel movement were also measured after surgery.

RESULTS

Seventy-one of the 80 patients who were recruited completed the study protocol. Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. Lidocaine significantly reduced pain intensity [visual analogue scale (VAS), 0-10 cm] at 2 h (lidocaine 3.01 ± 0.65 cm vs. placebo 4.27 ± 0.58 cm, p = 0.01) and 6 h (lidocaine 3.38 ± 0.42 cm vs. placebo 4.22 ± 0.67 cm, p = 0.01) and total fentanyl consumption 24 h after surgery (lidocaine 98.27 ± 16.33 μg vs. placebo 187.49 ± 19.76 μg, p = 0.005). Time to first flatus passage (lidocaine 20 ± 11 h vs. placebo 29 ± 10 h, p = 0.01) and time to first bowel movement (lidocaine 41 ± 16 h vs. placebo 57 ± 14 h, p = 0.01) were also significantly shorter in patients who received lidocaine. Intravenous lidocaine infusion experienced less cytokine release than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that perioperative systemic lidocaine improves postoperative recovery and attenuates the initiation of excessive inflammatory response following laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Perioperative Use of Intravenous Lidocaine

Perioperative lidocaine infusion improves analgesia and recovery after some surgical procedures, possibly through systemic antiinflammatory effects. This commentary provides the clinician with evidence for rational use of perioperative lidocaine infusion in procedures where it is of demonstrated benefit.

Lidocaine Infusion: A Promising Therapeutic Approach for Chronic Pain

Opioid abuse is a national epidemic in the United States, where it is estimated that a prescription drug overdose death occurs every 19 minutes. While opioids are highly effective in acute and subacute pain control, their use for treatment of chronic pain is controversial. Chronic opioids use is associated with tolerance, dependency, hyperalgesia. Although there are new strategies and practice guidelines to reduce opioid dependence and opioid prescription drug overdose, there has been little focus on development of opioid-sparing therapeutic approaches. Lidocaine infusion has been shown to be successful in controlling pain where other agents have failed. The opioid sparing properties of lidocaine infusion added to its analgesic and antihyperalgesic properties make lidocaine infusion a viable option for pain control in opioid dependent patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the opioid abuse epidemic, and we outline current evidence supporting the potential use of lidocaine infusion as an adjuvant therapeutic approach for management of chronic pain.

Laparoscopic surgery: a narrative review of pharmacotherapy in pain management

Laparoscopic surgery is widespread, and an increasing number of surgeries are performed laparoscopically. Early pain after laparoscopy can be similar or even more severe than that after open surgery. Thus, proactive pain management should be provided. Pain after laparoscopic surgery is derived from multiple origins; therefore, a single agent is seldom sufficient. Pain is most effectively controlled by a multimodal, preventive analgesia approach, such as combining opioids with non-opioid analgesics and local anaesthetics. Wound and port site local anaesthetic injections decrease abdominal wall pain by 1-1.5 units on a 0-10 pain scale. Inflammatory pain and shoulder pain can be controlled by NSAIDs or corticosteroids. In some patient groups, adjuvant drugs, ketamine and α2-adrenergic agonists can be helpful, but evidence on gabapentinoids is conflicting. In the present review, the types of pain that need to be taken into account while planning pain management protocols and the wide range of analgesic options that have been assessed in laparoscopic surgery are critically assessed. Recommendations to the clinician will be made regarding how to manage acute pain and how to prevent persistent postoperative pain. It is important to identify patients at the highest risk for severe and prolonged post-operative pain, and to have a proactive strategy in place for these individuals.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery

BACKGROUND

The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects including nausea and constipation. These adverse effects prevent smooth postoperative recovery. On the other hand not all patients may be suited to, and take benefit from, epidural analgesia used to enhance postoperative recovery. The non-opioid lidocaine was investigated in several studies for its use in multi-modal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 5 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), and reference lists of articles. We searched the trial registry database ClinicalTrials.gov, contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with epidural analgesia in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The intravenous lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively prior to incision and continued at least until the end of surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was independently assessed by two authors according to the methodological procedures specified by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected trial data on postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, surgical complication rates, and adverse effects of the intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 trials involving 2802 participants. Two trials compared intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia. In all the remaining trials placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (12), laparoscopic abdominal (13), or various other surgical procedures (20).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.We found evidence of effect for intravenous lidocaine on the reduction of postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) compared to placebo or no treatment at 'early time points (one to four hours)' (mean difference (MD) -0.84 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.59; low-quality evidence) and at 'intermediate time points (24 hours)' (MD -0.34 cm, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; low-quality evidence) after surgery. However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain at 'late time points (48 hours)' (MD -0.22 cm, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03; low-quality evidence). Pain reduction was most obvious at 'early time points' in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.78; low-quality evidence) and open abdominal surgery (MD -0.72, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.47; moderate-quality evidence). No evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain in participants undergoing all other surgeries (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.28; low-quality evidence). Quality of evidence is limited due to inconsistency and indirectness (small trial sizes).Evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on gastrointestinal recovery regarding the reduction of the time to first flatus (MD -5.49 hours, 95% CI -7.97 to -3.00; low-quality evidence), time to first bowel movement (MD -6.12 hours, 95% CI -7.36 to -4.89; low-quality evidence), and the risk of paralytic ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on shortening the time to first defaecation (MD -9.52 hours, 95% CI -23.24 to 4.19; very low-quality evidence).Furthermore, we found evidence of positive effects for lidocaine administration on secondary outcomes such as reduction of length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea, intraoperative and postoperative opioid requirements. There was limited data on the effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects (e.g. death, arrhythmias, other heart rate disorders or signs of lidocaine toxicity) compared to placebo treatment as only a limited number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects of the lidocaine intervention.The comparison of intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia revealed no evidence of effect for lidocaine on relevant outcomes. However, the results have to be considered with caution due to imprecision of the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate evidence that this intervention, when compared to placebo, has an impact on pain scores, especially in the early postoperative phase, and on postoperative nausea. There is limited evidence that this has further impact on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as gastrointestinal recovery, length of hospital stay, and opioid requirements. So far there is a scarcity of studies that have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects; the optimal dose; timing (including the duration of the administration); and the effects when compared with epidural anaesthesia.

Effects of intravenous versus epidural lidocaine infusion on pain intensity and bowel function after major large bowel surgery: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We compared the effects of intravenous lidocaine (IVL) with lumbar epidural lidocaine analgesia (LEA) on pain and ileus after open colonic surgery.

METHODS

Between December 2011 and February 2013, 60 patients were randomly allocated to IVL, LEA, or control group. The IVL group received intraoperatively lidocaine 2 % intravenously (1.5 mg/kg bolus, 2 mg/kg/h infusion) and normal saline (NS) epidurally. The LEA group received lidocaine epidurally (1.5 mg/kg bolus, 2 mg/kg/h infusion) and NS intravenously. The control group received NS both intravenously and epidurally, as bolus and infusion. All NS volumes were calculated as if containing lidocaine 2 % at the aforementioned doses. We assessed pain intensity at rest/cough at 1, 2, 4, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively (numerical rating scale 0-10), 48-h analgesic consumption, and time to first flatus passage.

RESULTS

Data from 60 patients (20 per group) were analyzed. The IVL group had significantly lower pain scores at rest and cough compared to LEA or control group only at 1, 2, and 4 h postoperatively (P < 0.005 for all comparisons). The 48-h analgesic requirements and time to first flatus passage did not differ significantly between IVL group and LEA or control group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LEA-lidocaine or placebo, intravenous lidocaine offered no clinically significant benefit in terms of analgesia and bowel function.

Effects of lidocaine and esmolol infusions on hemodynamic changes, analgesic requirement, and recovery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effects of lidocaine and esmolol infusions on intraoperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements, and recovery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery.

METHODS

The first group (n=30) received IV lidocaine infusions at a rate of 1.5mg/kg/min and the second group (n=30) received IV esmolol infusions at a rate of 1mg/kg/min. Hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements, and recovery characteristics were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the lidocaine group, systolic arterial blood pressures values were lower after the induction of anesthesia and at 20min following surgical incision (p<0.05). Awakening time was shorter in the esmolol group (p<0.001); Ramsay Sedation Scale scores at 10min after extubation were lower in the esmolol group (p<0.05). The modified Aldrete scores at all measurement time points during the recovery period were relatively lower in the lidocaine group (p<0.05). The time to attain a modified Aldrete score of ≥9 points was prolonged in the lidocaine group (p<0.01). Postoperative resting and dynamic VAS scores were higher in the lidocaine group at 10 and 20min after extubation (p<0.05, p<0.01, respectively). Analgesic supplements were less frequently required in the lidocaine group (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

In laparoscopic cholecystectomies, lidocaine infusion had superiorities over esmolol infusions regarding the suppression of responses to tracheal extubation and postoperative need for additional analgesic agents in the long run, while esmolol was more advantageous with respect to rapid recovery from anesthesia, attenuation of early postoperative pain, and modified Aldrete recovery (MAR) scores and time to reach MAR score of 9 points.

[Effect of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine on pain and plasma interleukin-6 in patients undergoing hysterectomy]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a predictor of trauma severity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on pain severity and plasma IL-6 after hysterectomy.

METHOD

A prospective, randomized, comparative, double-blind study with 40 patients, aged 18-60 years. G1 received lidocaine (2mg.kg(-1).h(-1)) or G2 received 0.9% saline solution during the operation. Anesthesia was induced with O2/isoflurane. Pain severity (T0: awake and 6, 12, 18 and 24hours), first analgesic request, and dose of morphine in 24hours were evaluated. IL-6 was measured before starting surgery (T0), five hours after the start (T5), and 24hours after the end of surgery (T24).

RESULTS

There was no difference in pain severity between groups. There was a decrease in pain severity between T0 and other measurement times in G1. Time to first supplementation was greater in G2 (76.0±104.4min) than in G1 (26.7±23.3min). There was no difference in supplemental dose of morphine between G1 (23.5±12.6mg) and G2 (18.7±11.3mg). There were increased concentrations of IL-6 in both groups from T0 to T5 and T24. There was no difference in IL-6 dosage between groups. Lidocaine concentration was 856.5±364.1 ng.mL(-1) in T5 and 30.1±14.2 ng.mL(-1) in T24.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine (2mg.kg(-1).h(-1)) did not reduce pain severity and plasma levels of IL-6 in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

Analgesic comparison of systemic lidocaine, morphine or lidocaine plus morphine infusion in dogs undergoing fracture repair

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative analgesic effects of lidocaine, morphine and lidocaine plus morphine administered by constant rate infusion (CRI) and analyzing their effects on opioid requirements after orthopedic surgery in dogs.

METHODS

Twenty-four dogs underwent fracture repairs were premedicated with IM acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with morphine (0.3mg/kg). Anesthesia was induced with IV propofol (4 to 5 mg/ kg) and maintained with isoflurane. The dogs were randomly assigned to 3 groups and administered a CRI IV of lidocaine (T-L), morphine (T-M) or lidocaine plus morphine (T-LM) at the same doses. Postoperative analgesia was assessed for 24 hours using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (GCPS). Rescue analgesia was performed if the evaluation score exceeded 50% of the VAS and/or 33% of the GCPS.

RESULTS

The pain score and postoperative opioid requirements did not differ among the treatments. Rescue analgesia was administered to 1/8 dogs in the T-M and T-LM, and to 3/8 dogs in the T-L.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine, morphine or lidocaine/morphine CRI may be efficacious techniques for pain management in the first 24 hours post-surgery. However, the two drugs administered together did not reduce the postoperative opioid requirement in dogs undergoing fracture repair. Key words: Anesthesia. Analgesics. Analgesics, Opioid. Lidocaine. Morphine. Dogs.

Opioid-free total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, dexmedetomidine and lidocaine infusions for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Intraoperative use of opioids may be associated with postoperative hyperalgesia and increased analgesic consumption. Side effects due to perioperative use of opioids, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting may delay discharge. We hypothesized that total intravenous anesthesia consisting of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute may be an alternative technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and would be associated with lower fentanyl requirements in the postoperative period and less incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

80 Anesthesiologists I-II adults were scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups to have either opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, and propofol infusions (Group DL) or opioid-based anesthesia with remifentanil, and propofol infusions (Group RF). All patients received a standard multimodal analgesia regimen. A patient controlled analgesia device was set to deliver IV fentanyl for 6h after surgery. The primary outcome variable was postoperative fentanyl consumption.

RESULTS

Fentanyl consumption at postoperative 2nd hour was statistically significantly less in Group DL, compared with Group RF, which were 75 ± 59 μg and 120 ± 94 μg respectively, while it was comparable at postoperative 6th hour. During anesthesia, there were more hypotensive events in Group RF, while there were more hypertensive events in Group DL, which were both statistically significant. Despite higher recovery times, Group DL had significantly lower pain scores, rescue analgesic and ondansetron need.

CONCLUSION

Opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, lidocaine and propofol infusions may be an alternative technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy especially in patients with high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery and overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review with regards to benefits while we considered quasi-randomised studies and non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 58 trials, of which 48 trials with 2849 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (1558 participants) versus control (1291 participants) contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. All the trials except one trial with 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various intraperitoneal local anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine in the liquid form was the most common local anaesthetic used. There were considerable differences in the methods of local anaesthetic instillation including the location (subdiaphragmatic, gallbladder bed, or both locations) and timing (before or after the removal of gallbladder) between the trials. There was no mortality in either group in the eight trials that reported mortality (0/236 (0%) in local anaesthetic instillation versus 0/210 (0%) in control group; very low quality evidence). One participant experienced the outcome of serious morbidity (eight trials; 446 participants; 1/236 (0.4%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 0/210 (0%) in the control group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; very low quality evidence). Although the remaining trials did not report the overall morbidity, three trials (190 participants) reported that there were no intra-operative complications. Twenty trials reported that there were no serious adverse events in any of the 715 participants who received local anaesthetic instillation. None of the trials reported participant quality of life, return to normal activity, or return to work.The effect of local anaesthetic instillation on the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with benefit and no difference of intervention (three trials; 242 participants; 89/160 (adjusted proportion 61.0%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 40/82 (48.8%) in control group; RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58; very low quality evidence). The MD in length of hospital stay was 0.04 days (95% CI -0.23 to 0.32; five trials; 335 participants; low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the local anaesthetic instillation group than the control group at four to eight hours (32 trials; 2020 participants; MD -0.99 cm; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.88 on a VAS scale of 0 to 10 cm; very low quality evidence) and at nine to 24 hours (29 trials; 1787 participants; MD -0.53 cm; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.44; very low quality evidence). Various subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the influence of the different local anaesthetic agents, different methods of local anaesthetic instillation, and different controls on the effectiveness of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation were inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that it reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is unknown and likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Anaesthetic regimens for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Day surgery involves admission of selected patients to hospital for a planned surgical procedure with the patients returning home on the same day. An anaesthetic regimen usually involves a combination of an anxiolytic, an induction agent, a maintenance agent, a method of maintaining the airway (laryngeal mask versus endotracheal intubation), and a muscle relaxant. The effect of anaesthesia may continue after the completion of surgery and can delay discharge. Various regimens of anaesthesia have been suggested for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different anaesthetic regimens (risks of mortality and morbidity, measures of recovery after surgery) in patients undergoing day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1987 to November 2013), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1987 to November 2013), Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge) (1987 to November 2013), LILACS (Virtual Health Library) (1987 to November 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/) (November 2013), World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal (November 2013), and ClinicalTrials.gov (November 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing different anaesthetic regimens during elective day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted the data. We calculated the risk ratio, rate ratio or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat or available data analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials involving 1069 participants at low anaesthetic risk. The sample size varied from 40 to 300 participants. We included 23 comparisons. All trials were at a high risk of bias. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis because there were no two trials involving the same comparison. Primary outcomes included perioperative mortality, serious morbidity and proportion of patients who were discharged on the same day. There were no perioperative deaths or serious adverse events in either group in the only trial that reported this information (0/60). There was no clear evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients who were discharged on the same day between any of the comparisons. Overall, 472/554 patients (85%) included in this review were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Secondary outcomes included hospital readmissions, health-related quality of life, pain, return to activity and return to work. There was no clear evidence of a difference in hospital readmissions within 30 days in the only comparison in which this outcome was reported. One readmission was reported in the 60 patients (2%) in whom this outcome was assessed. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the pain intensity, measured by a visual analogue scale, between comparators in the only trial which reported the pain intensity at between four and eight hours after surgery. Times to return to activity and return to work were not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that one anaesthetic regimen for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy is to be preferred over another. However, the data are sparse (that is, there were few trials under each comparison and the trials had few participants) and further well designed randomized trials at low risk of bias and which are powered to measure differences in clinically important outcomes are necessary to determine the optimal anaesthetic regimen for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy, one of the commonest procedures performed in the western world.

Intravenous lidocaine for post-operative pain relief after hand-assisted laparoscopic colon surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Perioperative intravenous (IV) infusion of lidocaine has been shown to decrease post-operative pain, shorten time to return of bowel function, and reduce the length of hospital stay. This randomized, prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the impact of IV lidocaine on the quality of post-operative analgesia and other outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic colon surgery.

METHODS

Sixty four patients with colon cancer scheduled for elective colon resection were involved in this study. Patients were randomized to receive either lidocaine infusion [lidocaine group (LG)] or normal 0.9 % saline infusion [placebo group (PG)] for a period of 24 h. Anaesthetic and surgical techniques were standardized. Twenty-four-hour post-operative analgesia in the recovery area was maintained by continuous infusion of 0.1 μg/kg/h fentanyl. The primary outcome of the study was post-operative pain control. Pain was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Patients with a VAS score >3 were treated with ketorolac 30 mg as needed. Secondary outcomes included time to resumption of bowel function and length of hospital stay. Data in the two groups were compared using the two-tailed Student's t test. All statistical tests were two-tailed at a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics and clinical features of both groups were similar. Intensity of pain at rest in LG compared with PG was significantly lower during the first 24 h post-operatively. LG patients reported significantly less pain during movements at 2-, 12-, and 24-h post-surgery than PG patients. The study showed that ketorolac consumption was significantly higher in PG: mean ketorolac consumption in LG was 43.77 ± 13.86 mg and in PG 51.67 ± 13.16 mg (p = 0.047). Compared with placebo, lidocaine infusion produced a 32 % reduction in time to the first drink (Cohen's d = 3.85), 16 % reduction in time to the first full diet (Cohen's d = 3.35), and 18 % reduction in time to the first bowel movement (Cohen's d = 2.30). Patients who received lidocaine stayed in hospital 1.2 days less than patients who received placebo (p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.72). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative continuous IV lidocaine infusion has a beneficial effect as regards post-operative pain, restoration of bowel function, and length of hospital stay in patients who have undergone hand-assisted laparoscopic colon surgery.

Medical management of acute pain in patients with chronic pain

The number of patients with chronic pain has increased over the years, as well as the number of patients who manage chronic pain with opioids. As prescribed opioid use has increased, so has its abuse and misuse. It has also been estimated that the number of people using opioids illicitly has doubled worldwide over the last 20 years. Management of chronic pain with opioids is associated with pathophysiological phenomena such as tolerance, dependence and hyperalgesia. They can become a problem when chronic pain patients present for a surgical procedure. Furthermore, patients who are on opioids on a regular basis require higher amounts during the perioperative period. The perioperative management of the chronic pain patient is difficult and complex. Developing an appropriate plan that can fulfill patients' and surgical team's needs requires skills and experience. The aim of this review is to describe the options available for the optimal perioperative management of acute pain in patients with a history of chronic pain.

Intraoperative intravenous lidocaine reduces hospital length of stay following open gastrectomy for stomach cancer in men

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether intraoperative low-dose lidocaine infusion decreases postoperative analgesic consumption, ileus, and duration of hospital stay.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial.

SETTING

Operating room in a university hospital.

PATIENTS

48 ASA physical status 1 and 2 men scheduled for subtotal gastrectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to two groups to receive either intravenous (IV) lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg 20 minutes before incision followed by a continuous lidocaine infusion of 1.5 mg/kg/hr until the end of surgery (lidocaine group) or saline in a similar manner (control group).

MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes such as pain intensity, postoperative analgesic consumption, duration of ileus, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no differences in total consumption of IV patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) or pain scores at 24, 48, or 72 hours postoperatively. However, lidocaine group patients had significantly decreased average supplemental pethidine requirement per patient for pain control until 72 hours postoperatively [150 (75-200) mg vs 50 (50-150) mg, P = 0.039] and hospital LOS (9.5 ± 3 d vs 8.7 ± 1 d, P = 0.006, 95% CI: - 0.3 - 1.9 d) than control group patients. However, no differences were noted between the groups in pain intensity or duration of ileus.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative IV low-dose lidocaine infusion decreased opioid consumption and hospital LOS after gastrectomy.

Effect of intraoperative lidocaine on anesthetic consumption, and bowel function, pain intensity, analgesic consumption and hospital stay after breast surgery

Background

Perioperative lidocaine infusion improves postoperative outcomes, mostly after abdominal and urologic surgeries. Knowledge of the effect of lidocaine on peripheral surgeries is limited. Presently, we investigated whether intraoperative lidocaine infusion reduced anesthetic consumption, duration of ileus, pain intensity, analgesic consumption and hospital stay after breast plastic surgeries.

Methods

Sixty female patients, aged 20-60 years, enrolled in this prospective study were randomly and equally divided to two groups. One group (n = 30) received a 1.5 mg/kg bolus of lidocaine approximately 30 min before incision followed by continuous infusion of lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg/h) until skin closure (lidocaine group). The other group (n = 30) was untreated (control group). Balanced inhalation (sevoflurane) anesthesia and multimodal postoperative analgesia were standardized. End tidal sevoflurane concentration during surgery, time to the first flatus and defecation, visual analog pain scale (0-10), analgesic consumption and associated side effects at 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery, hospital stay, and patient's general satisfaction were assessed.

Results

Compared to the control group, intraoperative lidocaine infusion reduced by 5% the amount of sevoflurane required at similar bispectral index (P = 0.014). However, there were no significant effects of lidocaine regarding the return of bowel function, postoperative pain intensity, analgesic sparing and side effects at all time points, hospital stay, and level of patient's satisfaction for pain control.

Conclusions

Low dose intraoperative lidocaine infusion offered no beneficial effects on return of bowel function, opioid sparing, pain intensity and hospital stay after various breast plastic surgeries.