Intravenous lidocaine for effective pain relief after bimaxillary surgery

Is Postoperative Pain Associated With Nausea and Vomiting Following Orthognathic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse side-effect following orthognathic surgery, with pain potentially contributing as a risk factor.

PURPOSE

The study's purpose was to measure the association between postoperative pain and PONV.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

This prospective cohort study involved patients who underwent bimaxillary surgery at Erciyes University, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Hospital. Patients with a history of routine antiemetic use, pregnancy, breastfeeding, morbid obesity, cardiac dysrhythmia, mental retardation, or psychiatric illness were excluded.

PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE/INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

The predictor variable was postoperative pain, which was measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). VAS scores were documented at the 30-minute postoperative mark (referred to as VAS1), and the mean of hourly VAS scores over the initial three postoperative hours (denoted as VAS2).

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S)

The primary outcome was the occurrence of PONV, defined as active vomiting, retching, or nausea leading to vomiting. The secondary outcome was the timing of PONV, categorized as early (within 6 hours), late (6-24 hours), and delayed (beyond 24 hours postoperatively).

COVARIATES

The study's covariates were age, sex, body mass index, Apfel risk scores, surgery duration, history of PONV or motion sickness, and smoking status.

ANALYSES

Descriptive statistics and χ2 tests were used for data analysis, with statistical significance set at P value < .05.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 86 subjects with a median age of 20 years (range: 18-30 years), of which 37.2% were male. The frequency of PONV was 50%. Postoperative pain, as measured by VAS scores, was significantly higher in the PONV group compared to the non-PONV group. The median VAS1 score was 60.0 (PONV group, range 40-90) versus 50.0 (non-PONV, range 0-90) (P = .041); for VAS2, it was 60.0 (PONV, range 40-80) compared to 40.0 (non-PONV, range 30-60) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The frequency of PONV observed in patients undergoing bimaxillary surgery is substantial, necessitating the identification and management of risk factors to enhance perioperative care and patient outcomes. By improving PONV management and addressing postoperative pain, health-care providers can enhance the perioperative experience and patient outcomes in bimaxillary surgery.

Efficacy of Tenoxicam, Paracetamol, and Their Combination in Postoperative Pain After Double-Jaw Surgery

Introduction Orthognathic surgical procedures include a series of surgical operations in which interventions are applied to the maxilla, mandible, or both for occlusal or aesthetic concerns due to facial skeletal development deformities. Double-jaw surgeries have the highest pain scores, in which both maxilla and mandible bones are intervened. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of individual applications of paracetamol and tenoxicam with their combined application on postoperative pain and opioid consumption in patients undergoing double-jaw surgery. Methods In this randomized, double-blind study, 60 patients undergoing double-jaw surgery were allocated into three groups, with each having 20 patients: the paracetamol group, the tenoxicam group, and the paracetamol-tenoxicam combination group. Pain intensity was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at intervals of 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, and again at the 24th postoperative hour. Additionally, the consumption of opioids and other rescue analgesics was documented over the 24-hour postoperative period. Results The VAS values at 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 24 hours were lower in the paracetamol-tenoxicam group compared to the other groups (p<0.001). The need for a rescue analgesic drug in the first 24 hours was not observed in the tenoxicam and paracetamol-tenoxicam groups. Conclusion It was concluded that both tenoxicam and paracetamol-tenoxicam combinations, especially the tenoxicam-paracetamol combination, were good options for postoperative analgesia in patients with double-jaw surgery.

Comparing the Effect of Ketamine and Lidocaine on Agitation and Pain in Rhinoplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Emergence agitation (EA) is an important clinical problem that occurs during the initial period of recovery from anesthesia. This study aimed to determine the effects of ketamine and lidocaine administered on agitation level, postoperative pain, and hemodynamic changes in adults after rhinoplasty.

Materials and Methods

Totally 72 patients scheduled to undergo elective rhinoplasty were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomly divided into three groups including control group (n = 24), ketamine group (n = 24), and lidocaine group (n = 24). Twenty minutes before surgery completion, 1 ml saline was administered intravenously to the saline group, while 0.5 mg/kg ketamine or 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was administered to two other groups. The emergence agitation level of the patients was evaluated using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale just after extubation and in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Postoperative pain was evaluated by Numerical Rating Scale that scored (from 0 to 10) every 10 min until the patients were discharged from PACU.

Results

There was a significant difference between EA level between ketamine (P = 0.049) and lidocaine (P = 0.019) groups compared to the control group, and there was a significant difference between pain level between the ketamine (P = 0.008) and lidocaine (P = 0.035) groups compared the to control group, while there was no significant difference between the level of agitation (P = 0.922) and level of pain (P = 0.845) after extubation between the ketamine and lidocaine groups.

Conclusion

Ketamine and lidocaine are highly effective in preventing EA and pain control. Further studies with a greater sample size and longer follow-up period are needed to confirm the current findings.

Perioperative therapies to reduce edema after orthognathic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To systematically review the literature and assess the effectiveness of perioperative systemic and nonsystemic therapies in reducing edema after orthognathic surgery. Study Design Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Bireme, and Scopus) were searched. Only randomized clinical trials were included and assessed using the RoB 2.0 software (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Studies were grouped into time of assessment and systemic/nonsystemic therapy. Results Eighteen studies were included in this review (8 in the meta-analysis, n = 349). The qualitative assessment of systemic (enzyme therapy, dexamethasone, betamethasone, and Venoplant) and nonsystemic therapies (thermotherapy and K-Taping) appear to reduce edema. Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) after 72 hours (CI: -1.03 to 2.31; P = .45), and 30 days (CI: -1.53 to 0.49; P = .49), and laser after 24 hours (CI: -1.36 to 1.48; P = .93), 72 hours (CI: -4.81 to 2.92; P = .63), 30 days (CI: -3.44 to 0.99; P = .28), and 90 days (CI: -1.83 to 0.96; P = .54) showed no significance. Thermotherapy reduced edema after 48 hours (CI: -48.47 to -13.31; P = .0006) and 30 days (CI: -14.73 to -1.98; P = .01). Conclusion The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool showed moderate evidence for thermotherapy (significant reduction of edema), whereas the MLD and laser results were rated as high certainty of evidence (no reduction of edema).

Lidocaine relieves murine allergic rhinitis by regulating the NF-κB and p38 MAPK pathways

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic inflammatory diseases and its main feature is nasal mucositis. It has been recently revealed that lidocaine demonstrates optimal effects in the treatment of various diseases. However, a limited number of studies have examined the association between lidocaine and AR. In the present study, the AR mouse model was established to explore the effects of lidocaine in AR and to further analyze its molecular mechanism. Subsequently, different concentrations of lidocaine were provided to the animals by intranasal administration and a series of indices were assessed. The data indicated that the frequencies of mouse sneezing and nose rubbing were suppressed following an increase in lidocaine concentration. Subsequently, the number of inflammatory cells was measured. Wright's-Giemsa staining results indicated that lidocaine significantly decreased the numbers of leukocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils and lymphocytes in the nasal lavage fluid (NLF) of AR mice. In addition, the expression levels of ovalbumin (OVA)-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), leukotriene C4 (LTC4) and certain inflammatory factors were assessed by ELISA. Lidocaine reduced OVA-specific IgE and LTC4 expression in NLF and plasma derived from AR mice. It also decreased the expression levels of IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-17 and TNF-α. Lidocaine caused upregulation of IFN-γ and IL-2 expression levels. Subsequently, western blot analysis indicated that lidocaine suppressed phosphorylated (p)-p38 and p-p65 expression levels in AR mice. Collectively, the results indicated that the NF-κB and p38 MAPK signaling pathways were involved in the lidocaine-mediated relief of AR in mice. In order to further verify the association between the NF-κB and p38 MAPK signaling pathways and AR in mice, the effects of the NF-κB inhibitor IMD-0354 and the p38 MAPK inhibitor SB 203580 were assessed on AR mice. The results indicated that these two compounds exhibited similar inhibitory effects on AR mice as those noted with the use of lidocaine. These findings suggested that lidocaine represented a novel therapeutic agent for AR.

Intravenous ibuprofen versus diclofenac plus orphenadrine in orthognathic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study

Objectives

The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of ibuprofen versus diclofenac plus orphenadrine on postoperative pain in orthognathic surgery.

Material and methods

Patients who underwent orthognathic surgery were randomized into two groups to receive intravenously either 600 mg of ibuprofen (I-group) or 75 mg diclofenac plus 30 mg orphenadrine (D-group), both of which were given twice daily. Additionally, both groups were given metamizole 500 mg. Rescue pain medication consisted of acetaminophen 1000 mg and piritramide 7.5 mg as needed. To assess the pain intensity, the primary end point was the numeric rating scale (NRS) recorded over the course of the hospital stay three times daily for 3 days.

Results

One hundred nine patients were enrolled (age range, 18 to 61 years) between May 2019 and November 2020. Forty-eight bilateral sagittal split osteotomies (BSSO) and 51 bimaxillary osteotomies (BIMAX) were performed. Surgical subgroup analysis found a significant higher mean NRS (2.73 vs.1.23) in the BIMAX D-group vs. I-group (p = 0.015) on the third postoperative day. Additionally, as the patient’s body mass index (BMI) increased, the mean NRS (r = 0.517, p = 0.001) also increased. No differences were found between age, gender, length of hospital stay, weight, operating times, number of patients with complete pain relief, acetaminophen or piritramide intake, and NRS values. No adverse events were observed.

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrate that ibuprofen administration and lower BMI were associated with less pain for patients who underwent bimaxillary osteotomy on the third postoperative day. Therefore, surgeons may prefer ibuprofen for more effective pain relief after orthognathic surgery.

Clinical relevance

Ibuprofen differs from diclofenac plus orphenadrine in class and is a powerful analgetic after orthognathic surgery.

Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion on Postoperative Early Recovery Quality in Upper Airway Surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Systemic infusions of lidocaine have been widely used as perioperative analgesic adjuvants. The aim of this randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial was to investigate the effect of perioperative lidocaine infusion on postoperative early recovery quality in upper airway surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 99 patients were randomly assigned to the lidocaine group (group L) or the control group (group C). The patients received 2 mg/kg lidocaine completed within 10 minutes before the induction of anesthesia followed by continuous infusions of 2 mg/kg/hr lidocaine (group L) or the same volume of 0.9% normal saline (group C) intravenously during anesthesia. The Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) survey was administered on the preoperative day (Pre) and postoperative days 1 (POD1) and 2 (POD2). The primary endpoint was QoR-40 score on POD1 and POD2.

RESULTS

Compared with Pre, global QoR-40 scores on POD1 and POD2 were significantly lower (P < .05). Compared with group C, global QoR-40 scores were significantly higher in group L on POD1 and POD2 (P < .05). Among the five dimensions of QoR-40, the scores for physical comfort, emotional state, and pain were superior in group L compared to group C (P < .05). Compared with group C, the consumption of remifentanil and diclofenac as well as the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postoperative 48-hour numeric rating scale (NRS) scores in group L were significantly lower (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic lidocaine infusion can improve QoR-40 scores in patients with upper airway surgery, reduce the dosage of intraoperative opioids, decrease the incidence of PONV and NRS scores 2 days after surgery, thus improving postoperative early recovery quality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b Laryngoscope, 131:E63-E69, 2021.

Management of postoperative pain in maxillofacial surgery

In this review we describe the evidence base for postoperative analgesia after maxillofacial surgery. We discuss the implications of poorly managed pain, risk factors for the development of severe pain, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological analgesic strategies to manage it.

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.