Analgesic effects of a 5% lidocaine patch after cesarean section: A randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial

Lidocaine Patches After Cesarean Sections: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVES

Lidocaine patches are a common topical analgesic therapy but have not been thoroughly investigated in the surgical or obstetric literature. We sought to investigate the impact of adding topical lidocaine patches to routine post-cesarean pain management on patients' post-cesarean pain scores and opioid use.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective randomized subject blinded controlled trial of patients undergoing cesarean delivery at a single institution. Individuals were excluded if they had three or more cesarean sections, abdominoplasty, history of abdominal hernia repair with mesh, active polysubstance use, or history of opiate use disorder with current medication-assisted treatment. Patients were randomized via a 1:1 randomization scheme to a placebo patch or lidocaine patch. Baseline maternal characteristics were collected. The primary outcome was mean visual analog pain scores (0-10). Our secondary outcome was total morphine equivalents used over the post-operative hospital stay. Pre- and post-study surveys were performed to evaluate subject's prior analgesia use (including opioids) and patient experience in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were randomized and 93 had complete data for analysis (46 placebo group, 47 treatment group). Groups had similar baseline characteristics (age, BMI, ethnicity, surgical time, and estimated blood loss). Mean maximum post-operative pain score by visual analog scale did not differ between placebo or lidocaine patch groups on post-operative day 1 (p=0.3), day 2 (p=0.9), day 3 (p=0.07), or day 4 (p=0.09). Mean post-operative pain score by visual analog scale did not differ between placebo or lidocaine patch groups on post-operative day 1 (p=0.7), day 2 (p=0.6), day 3 (p=0.2), or day 4 (p=0.5). In the post-study survey, 0% of the respondents in the lidocaine patch group reported disruption of their care and 63% reported desired use of lidocaine patch in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of lidocaine patches did not significantly decrease the maximum or average post-operative pain scores via visual analog scale after cesarean sections. More research is needed into non-opioid pain management strategies in the post-operative period in obstetric care.

Effect of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in preventing chronic postsurgical pain after knee replacement: protocol for a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Background

With an aging population, knee arthroplasty is increasingly common; however, chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) affects up to 30% of patients. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster (LP5) in preventing CPSP among patients undergoing knee arthroplasty.

Methods

This is a dual-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 128 adult patients scheduled for knee arthroplasty. Participants will be randomly assigned, stratified by center, to either the LP5 group or the placebo group (n = 64 per group). The LP5 or placebo group will apply the patch 1 day before surgery and on postoperative days 1-3, with multimodal analgesia administered postoperatively. Multimodal analgesia will include intraoperative flurbiprofen axetil and postoperative patient-controlled sufentanil. The primary outcome is the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes will include WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scales; Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) Pain Scale; 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); postoperative pain scores; Visual Analog Scale (VAS) sleep scores; postoperative sufentanil consumption; need for rescue analgesia; length of Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) stay; length of hospital stay; and 90-day mortality. Safety outcomes will include assessments of hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, arrhythmia, interventions for haemodynamic events, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, local skin allergy, wound infection, and toxic reaction. Data will be analyzed following a modified intention-to-treat approach.

Discussion

This study aims to provide high-quality evidence for the efficacy and safety of LP5 in preventing CPSP in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty.

Effect of intraoperative injection of esketamine on postoperative analgesia and postoperative rehabilitation after cesarean section

BACKGROUND

Following cesarean section, a significant number of women encounter moderate to severe pain. Inadequate management of acute pain post-cesarean section can have far-reaching implications, adversely impacting maternal emotional well-being, daily activities, breastfeeding, and neonatal care. It may also impede maternal organ function recovery, leading to escalated opioid usage, heightened risk of postpartum depression, and the development of chronic postoperative pain. Both the Chinese Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines and the American ERAS Society guidelines consistently advocate for the adoption of multimodal analgesia protocols in post-cesarean section pain management. Esketamine, functioning as an antagonist of the N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor, has been validated for pain management in surgical patients and has exhibited effectiveness in depression treatment. Research has suggested that incorporating esketamine into postoperative pain management via pain pumps can lead to improvements in short-term depression and pain outcomes. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of administering a single dose of esketamine during cesarean section.

AIM

To investigate the effect of intraoperative injection of esketamine on postoperative analgesia and postoperative rehabilitation after cesarean section.

METHODS

A total of 315 women undergoing elective cesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomized into three groups: low-dose esketamine (0.15 mg/kg), high-dose esketamine (0.25 mg/kg), and control (saline). Postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were recorded at 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours. Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores were noted on 2 days, 7 days and 42 days. Ramsay sedation scores were assessed at specified intervals post-injection. Postoperative adverse reactions were also recorded.

RESULTS

Low-dose group and high-dose group compared to control group, had significantly lower postoperative VAS pain scores at 6 hours 12 hours, and 24 hours (P < 0.05), with reduced analgesic usage (P < 0.05). EPDS scores and postpartum depression rates were significantly lower on 2 days and 7 days (P < 0.05). No significant differences in first exhaust and defecation times were observed (P > 0.05), but ambulation times were shorter (P < 0.05). Ramsay scores were higher at 5 minutes, 15 minutes, and upon room exit (P < 0.05). Low-dose group and high-dose group had higher incidences of hallucination, lethargy, and diplopia within 2 hours (P < 0.05), and with low-dose group had lower incidences of hallucination, lethargy, and diplopia than high-dose group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Esketamine enhances analgesia and postpartum recovery; a 0.15 mg/kg dose is optimal for cesarean sections, balancing efficacy with minimized adverse effects.

Is Lidocaine Patch Beneficial for Postoperative Pain?: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether a lidocaine patch is beneficial for postoperative pain as an option for multimodal analgesia.

METHODS

Information was obtained from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical randomized controlled trials of lidocaine patches for postoperative pain (as of March 2022). Two researchers independently completed study screening, risk bias assessment, and data extraction. Review Manager (version 5.4, Cochrane Collaboration) was used to conduct the meta-analysis. The evaluation metrics were postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included, and data from 918 patients were available. Pain scores differed between the 2 groups at 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively, and the pain scores of the lidocaine patch group were significantly lower (mean difference [MD]=-1.32 [95% CI, -1.96 to -0.68], P <0.0001; I2 =92%) at 12 hours after the operation; (MD=-1.23 [95% CI, -1.72 to -0.75], P <0.00001; I2 =92%) at 24 hours after the operation; and (MD=-0.25 [95% CI,-0.29 to -0.21], P <0.00001; I2 =98%) at 48 hours after the operation. In addition, the lidocaine patch group had decreased opioid requirements (MD=-3.57 [95% CI, -5.06 to -2.09], P <0.00001; I2 =96%). The lidocaine patch group seemed to be more satisfied, but there was no statistically significant difference (risk ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.74 to 3.05], P =0.26) between the groups.

DISCUSSION

Lidocaine patches are beneficial for postoperative pain and can be used in multimodal analgesia to reduce opioid use, but there is no significant increase in patient satisfaction with pain control. More data are needed to support this conclusion due to the large heterogeneity in the present study.

Short-term clinical effectiveness of 5% lidocaine patch after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) often causes unbearable postoperative pain, even more severe than before surgery. Opioids are the drugs of choice for temporary postoperative analgesia. However, this conventional approach also has some side effects and potential for drug abuse. The aims of this study are expected to verify the effect of 5% lidocaine patch (LP5) on the intensity of early postoperative pain, functional recovery and quality of life in patients undergoing ARCR.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial, a total of 102 postoperative patients undergoing ARCR will be randomly assigned to either the LP5 group, receiving topical lidocaine analgesia, or the placebo control group. The primary outcome measure will be the change in the American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons score from pre-operation to 90 days post-operation. Secondary outcomes will include pain scores, range of motion, opioid use, safety indicators, blinding assessment and several shoulder function score questionnaires. The effect of the allocated treatment will be assessed at preoperative baseline and at 7-, 14-, 30- and 90-day postoperatively.

DISCUSSION

In this study, the efficacy and safety of the 5% lidocaine patch will be evaluated in terms of short-term clinical symptoms in patients undergoing ARCR. The results of this study will help determine whether LP5 is effective in early functional recovery in ARCR and whether it relieves pain and reduces opioid consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn ) ChiCTR2200060108. Registered on 19 May 2022.

Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine Patch in the Management of Acute Postoperative Wound Pain: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to quantify the pooled effects of lidocaine patch (LP) on postoperative pain and side-effects through a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.

APPROACH

The study followed PRISMA, AMSTAR and the Cochrane Collaboration. Randomized controlled trials s comparing LP with placebo were retrieved from five electronic databases. Primary outcome in the study was cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption (mg) within 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Twelve trials comprising 617 patients were included in the final analysis. Primary result indicated that the analgesic effects LP were only statistical but not clinically significant of postoperative intravenous morphine consumption within 24 hours (mean difference, -4.61 mg; 95% CI, -8.09, -1.14). Interestingly, the results of subgroup and meta-regression analysis indicated that preoperative administration of LP had potential advantages in postoperative wound pain management. It is also worthwhile to mention that LP provided a clinically important benefit in rest pain scores within 24-hour postoperatively. Apart from these, other secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any particularly significant analgesic or safety advantages to LP. Finally, LP also does not increase the risk of any local anesthetic-related side effects.

INNOVATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides moderate-to-high quality evidence undermining the role of LP for management of acute postoperative wound pain following surgical procedures and the justification for the associated extra costs.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, the current evidence does not support LP as part of a routine multimodal analgesia strategy to alleviate early postoperative acute pain. However, further studies should explore the clinical value of preoperative administration and the long-term effect of LP.

Postoperative recovery: how and when is it assessed: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus about the type of instrument with which to assess postoperative recovery or the time points when assessments are most appropriate. It is also unclear whether instruments measure the four dimensions of postoperative recovery, that is physical, psychological, social, and habitual recovery. This scoping review had three objectives: (1) to identify and describe instruments used in clinical trials to assess postoperative recovery; (2) to determine how, when, and the number of times postoperative recovery was measured; and (3) to explore whether the four dimensions of postoperative recovery are represented in the identified instruments.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. The search terms were related to three search strands: postoperative recovery, instrument, and clinical trials. The limits were English language and publication January 2010 to November 2021. In total, 5015 studies were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 198 studies were included in the results. We identified 20 instruments measuring postoperative recovery. Different versions of Quality of Recovery represented 81.8% of the included instruments. Postoperative recovery was often assessed at one time point (47.2%) and most often on postoperative day 1 (81.5%). Thirteen instruments had items covering all four dimensions of postoperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing recovery is important to evaluate and improve perioperative care. We emphasise the importance of choosing the right instrument for the concept studied and, if postoperative recovery is of interest, of assessing more than once. Ideally, instruments should include all four dimensions to cover the whole recovery process.