Pre- and Intraoperative Lidocaine Injection for Preemptive Analgesics in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Pharmacologic prevention and therapy of postoperative paralytic ileus after gastrointestinal cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative paralytic ileus (POI) is a significant concern following gastrointestinal tumor surgery. Effective preventive and therapeutic strategies are crucial but remain elusive. Current evidence from randomized-controlled trials on pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of POI are systematically reviewed to guide clinical practice and future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature was systematically searched for prospective randomized-controlled trials testing pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of POI after gastrointestinal tumor surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to determine risk ratios and mean differences with 95% CI. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed.

RESULTS

Results from 55 studies, involving 5078 patients who received experimental interventions, indicate that approaches of opioid-sparing analgesia, peripheral opioid antagonism, reduction of sympathetic hyperreactivity, and early use of laxatives effectively prevent POI. Perioperative oral Alvimopan or intravenous administration of Lidocaine or Dexmedetomidine, while safe regarding cardio-pulmonary complications, demonstrated effectiveness concerning various aspects of postoperative bowel recovery [Lidocaine: -5.97 (-7.20 to -4.74)h, P <0.0001; Dexmedetomidine: -13.00 (-24.87 to -1.14)h, P =0.03 for time to first defecation; Alvimopan: -15.33 (-21.22 to -9.44)h, P <0.0001 for time to GI-2 ] and length of hospitalization [Lidocaine: -0.67 (-1.24 to -0.09)d, P =0.02; Dexmedetomidine: -1.28 (-1.96 to -0.60)d, P =0.0002; Alvimopan: -0.58 (-0.84 to -0.32)d, P <0.0001] across wide ranges of evidence quality. Perioperative nonopioid analgesic use showed efficacy concerning bowel recovery as well as length of hospitalization [-1.29 (-1.95 to -0.62)d, P =0.0001]. Laxatives showed efficacy regarding bowel movements, but not food tolerance and hospitalization. Evidence supporting pharmacological treatment for clinically evident POI is limited. Results from one single study suggest that Neostigmine reduces time to flatus and accelerates bowel movements [-37.06 (-40.26 to -33.87)h, P <0.0001 and -42.97 (-47.60 to -38.35)h, P <0.0001, respectively] with low evidence quality.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence concerning pharmacological prevention and treatment of POI following gastrointestinal tumor surgery is limited. Opioid-sparing concepts, reduction of sympathetic hyperreactivity, and laxatives should be implemented into multimodal perioperative approaches.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative pain and gastrointestinal function recovery following gastrointestinal surgery: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The full extent of intravenous lidocaine's effectiveness in alleviating postoperative pain and enhancing gastrointestinal function recovery remains uncertain.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted an exhaustive search of databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared intravenous lidocaine infusion's efficacy to that of a placebo or routine care in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome measure was resting pain scores 24 h postoperatively. We utilized a random-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle for the overall results.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

This study included twenty-four trials with 1533 patients. Intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced resting pain scores 24 h after gastrointestinal surgery (twenty trials, SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.24, P=0.002, I2 = 90%). This finding was consistent in subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. The benefit was also observed at other resting and moving time points (1, 2, 4, and 12 h) postoperatively. Intravenous lidocaine significantly decreased opioid consumption within 24 h after surgery (eleven trials, SMD: -1.19; 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.39; P=0.003). Intravenous lidocaine also shortened the time to bowel sound (MD: -8.51; 95% CI: -14.59 to -2.44; P=0.006), time to first flatus (MD: -6.00; 95% CI: -9.87 to -2.13; P=0.002), and time to first defecation (MD: -9.77; 95% CI: -17.19 to -2.36; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine can alleviate acute pain and expedite gastrointestinal function recovery in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to substantial heterogeneity. Further large-scale studies are necessary to validate these findings.

Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Intraoperative Intravenous Lidocaine on the Opioid Consumption and Criteria for Hospital Discharge After Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Surgical trauma, pain and opioids can cause nausea, vomiting, ileus and increased length of hospital stay. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the time to recovery of gastrointestinal function and the time to meet hospital discharge criteria after laparoscopic bariatric surgery with intraoperative intravenous lidocaine administration. Secondary objectives were to evaluate morphine consumption during the first 24 h and the side effects of opioids.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients aged 18 to 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery were allocated into two groups. Group 1 patients received intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) 5 min before induction of anaesthesia, followed by infusion (2 mg/kg/h) until the end of surgery. Group 2 patients were given 0.9% saline solution (placebo) and infusion of 0.9% saline solution during surgery, in same volume as group 1. Anaesthesia was performed with fentanyl (5 μg/kg), propofol (2 mg/kg), rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg) and sevoflurane. Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia was with morphine. There were two groups that were evaluated: time to recovery of gastrointestinal function and time to meet discharge criteria.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups regarding the time to first flatus, time to meet discharge criteria and occurrence of side effects. Consumption of intraoperative sevoflurane and morphine over 24 h was significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Side effects observed were nausea and vomiting, with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine is feasible and easily accessible when administered at appropriate doses. Lidocaine reduces morphine consumption.

Lidocaine suppresses the malignant behavior of gastric cancer cells via the c-Met/c-Src pathway

The present study was designed to investigate the role and mechanism of action behind the action of lidocaine in gastric cancer cells. Lidocaine was tested for its potential role in affecting the viability of cells using Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assays. It was found that there was a decreased MKN45 cell viability upon lidocaine treatment in a dose-dependent manner. Phosphorylated c-Met, phosphorylated c-Src, c-Met and c-Src levels were detected using western blotting following lidocaine or hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) intervention. It was found that the phosphorylation levels of c-Met and c-Src were markedly reduced by lidocaine treatment, with this effect being further relieved by the addition of HGF. Subsequently, whether lidocaine repressed the malignant biological properties of gastric cancer cells through the c-Met/c-Src axis was further investigated through the detection of epithelial-mesenchymal transition markers (N-caderin and vimentin), wound healing and transwell assay analysis. In addition, cell apoptosis and the levels of apoptosis-related proteins were determined using TUNEL and western blot assays, respectively. The results demonstrated that the malignant behavior of cells were notably repressed upon lidocaine treatment, but the addition of HGF markedly reversed these effects, indicating that the effects of lidocaine on supressing the malignant behaviour of cells could be mediated through the c-Met/c-Src axis. Subsequently, whether lidocaine affected the sensitivity of cells to cisplatin or 5-FU was analyzed using a CCK-8 assay. Enhanced sensitivity of cells to cisplatin or 5-FU was observed when treated in combination with lidocaine. The present study concluded that the involvement of the c-Met/c-Src pathway in the biological behaviour of MKN45 cells was mediated by lidocaine. Therefore, lidocaine may have the potential to suppress the malignant behaviour and proliferation of gastric cancer cells.

Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine Can Accelerate Postoperative Early Recovery in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is defined by intermittent and recurrent episodes of partial or complete obstruction of the upper airway during sleep. Intermittent and recurrent hypoxia/reoxygenation is the main pathophysiological mechanism of OSA. Its consequences include systemic inflammation, activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and release of oxygen free radicals. Infusion of intravenous (IV) lidocaine has anti-inflammatory, antihyperalgesic, and analgesic properties, supporting its use as an anesthetic adjuvant. Lidocaine can reduce nociception and/or cardiovascular responses to surgical stress, as well as postoperative pain and/or analgesic requirements. Because of the high prevalence of OSA in obese patients, the use of opioids to manage postoperative pain in that population is often accompanied by the development of adverse respiratory events, such as hypoventilation and hypoxemia. IV infusion of lidocaine has been shown to enhance the quality of early recovery after laparoscopic bariatric and upper airway surgery. However, limited evidence exists regarding its use in patients undergoing surgery for OSA. In addition, whether IV infusion of lidocaine can improve postoperative early recovery in patients undergoing surgery for OSA remains unknown. Therefore, we hypothesized that IV infusion of lidocaine can improve postoperative early recovery in patients undergoing surgery for OSA. Perioperative infusion also may be a promising analgesic adjunct to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.

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.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the context of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery program

The concept of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) emerged at the turn of the millennium and quickly gained footing worldwide leading to the establishment of institutional ERAS protocols and subspecialty guidelines. While the use of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis predates ERAS by a significant extent, the emergence of ERAS amplified the importance of antiemetic prophylaxis in perioperative care and drew attention to the truly multifactorial nature of postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction. The following discussion will review key paradigms behind PONV prophylaxis and ERAS, highlight the interrelationship between these two endeavors, and then explore subspecialty ERAS guidelines that uniquely influence PONV prophylaxis. Attention will center on the ERAS Society guidelines (ESGs) as the primary representative of current ERAS practice, though many deviations from the guidelines exist within the literature and institutional practices.

Influence of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on perioperative opioid consumption in laparoscopic intestine resection: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective

The consumption of opioid analgesics could be reduced by the use of analgesics with different mechanisms of action. We investigated whether additional treatment with dexmedetomidine or lidocaine could reduce opioid consumption.

Methods

We randomized 59 study participants into three groups and examined: (i) fentanyl consumption, (ii) consumption of piritramide, and (iii) cognitive function and neuropathic pain. The control group received continuous propofol infusion and fentanyl boluses. Continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg/h) was administered to the dexmedetomidine group and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg/h) was administered to the lidocaine group.

Results

No reduction in fentanyl consumption was observed among the groups. However, we noted a significantly lower consumption of piritramide on the first and second postoperative day in the lidocaine group. Total consumption of piritramide was significantly lower in the lidocaine group compared with the control group.

Conclusions

Lidocaine and dexmedetomidine reduced intraoperative propofol consumption, while lidocaine reduced postoperative piritramide consumption.

Clinical trial registration: NCT02616523

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.

Is intravenous lidocaine effective for decreasing pain and speeding up recovery after surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Lidocaine is widely used in anesthesia due to its multiple properties, including its role as analgesic. However, it is not entirely clear which are the real benefits of its use in the perioperative setting.

METHODS

To answer this question we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified 15 systematic reviews including 53 studies overall, all of them randomized controlled trials. We concluded the use of intravenous perioperative lidocaine probably results in a clinically irrelevant difference in pain and length of hospital stay, but it probably prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Essential Elements of Multimodal Analgesia in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Guidelines

Perioperative multimodal analgesia uses combinations of analgesic medications that act on different sites and pathways in an additive or synergistic manner to achieve pain relief with minimal or no opiate consumption. Although all medications have side effects, opiates have particularly concerning, multisystemic, long-term, and short-term side effects, which increase morbidity and prolong admissions. Enhanced recovery is a systematic process addressing each aspect affecting recovery. This article outlines the evidence base forming the current multimodal analgesia recommendations made by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society (ERAS). We describe current evidence and important future directions for effective perioperative multimodal analgesia in enhanced recovery pathways.

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.

Post-Operative Pain Management in Patients Undergoing Robotic Urological Surgery

Robotic urological surgery is being increasingly performed worldwide. The main focus currently is on the operative technique but post operative patient care is an essential part of the process to make this technique safe and successful. We present a review on multiple analgesic techniques available to prevent and treat pain specifically caused after by urological robotic surgery; this article will explain the mechanism of pain pathways involved in laparoscopic procedures and review current evidence pertaining to systemic and regional analgesia methods.

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.

Postoperative pain and preemptive local anesthetic infiltration in hallux valgus surgery

BACKGROUND

Several techniques of anesthesia are used in foot surgery. Preemptive analgesia helps to prevent the development of hypersensitivity in the perioperative period. The aim of our study was to assess the role of preemptive local anesthetic infiltration and postoperative pain after hallux valgus surgery.

METHODS

We evaluated 118 patients who underwent modified chevron and mini-invasive Mitchell-Kramer bunionectomy of the first distal metatarsal. After spinal anesthesia each patient randomly received an infiltration of local anesthetic or the same amount of normal saline 10 minutes before the skin incision. We measured the intensity of pain 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, and 72 hours after the release of the tourniquet using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Rescue analgesia and all other side effects were noted.

RESULTS

Preemptive analgesia resulted in less pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. The decrease of VAS score was significantly lower in the study group during all the short postoperative periods measured. The rescue analgesia was administered in 11.9% of patients in the injected group and 42.4% in the placebo group (P < .05). In the injected group we did not observe significant difference in VAS score between patients post-chevron and miniinvasive Mitchell-Kramer osteotomy of the first distal metatarsal. No systemic adverse effects were noted. One persistent injury of dorsomedial cutaneous nerve was observed.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive local anesthetic infiltration was an efficient and safe method to reduce postoperative pain after hallux valgus surgery. The analgesic effect was satisfactory in both traditional and minimally invasive techniques.

Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND

Application of evidence-based perioperative care protocols reduces complication rates, accelerates recovery and shortens hospital stay. Presently, there are no comprehensive guidelines for perioperative care for gastrectomy.

METHODS

An international working group within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society assembled an evidence-based comprehensive framework for optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing gastrectomy. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system and were discussed until consensus was reached within the group. The quality of evidence was rated 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low'. Recommendations were graded as 'strong' or 'weak'.

RESULTS

The available evidence has been summarized and recommendations are given for 25 items, eight of which contain procedure-specific evidence. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The present evidence-based framework provides comprehensive advice on optimal perioperative care for the patient undergoing gastrectomy and facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomized trials for further research.