Early oral feeding following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

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.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Appropriate Duration of Perioperative Intravenous Administration of Lidocaine to Provide Satisfactory Analgesia for Adult Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Perioperative lidocaine infusion has been reported to alleviate pain intensity after colorectal surgery. However, there is no consensus on whether prolonged lidocaine infusion is more effective than short lidocaine infusion. This meta-analysis aimed to determine an appropriate duration of lidocaine infusion in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles published before December 17, 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous lidocaine with placebo for pain relief in patients undergoing colorectal surgery were included. The primary outcome was pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-10 cm) at 24 hours postoperatively at rest and on movement. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at 12, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively, analgesic consumption (mg), gastrointestinal function return (hour), length of hospital stay (days), and incidence of complications. According to the duration of lidocaine infusion, studies were grouped into infusion for at least 24 hours (prolonged lidocaine infusion) and less than 24 hours (short lidocaine infusion) to assess the impact of lidocaine infusion duration on the outcomes of interests. Quantitative analyses were performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 548 patients were included. Five studies used prolonged lidocaine infusion, while 6 studies used short lidocaine infusion. Prolonged lidocaine infusion reduced postoperative pain scores versus placebo at 24 hours at rest (mean difference [MD], -0.91 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.54 to -0.28; P = .02) and on movement (MD, -1.69 cm; 95% CI, -2.15 to -1.22; P < .001), while short lidocaine infusion showed no benefit. Compared with placebo, prolonged lidocaine infusion reduced pain scores at 12 hours at rest and at 12 and 48 hours on movement, but short lidocaine infusion did not. However, there was no significant difference in pain scores between the prolonged and short lidocaine infusion groups at these time points. Compared with placebo, prolonged lidocaine infusion shortened the length of hospital stay (MD, -1.30 days; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.88; P < .001) and time to first postoperative defecation (MD, -12.51 hours; 95% CI, -22.67 to -2.34; P = .02). There were no differences between groups regarding the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic effect of intravenous lidocaine may depend on the duration of infusion, and our results suggest that lidocaine infusion should be administered for at least 24 hours after colorectal surgery. Since overall evidence quality was low, further high-quality, large-sample trials are needed to explore an optimal lidocaine infusion strategy in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Reduce Post-operative Pain and Length of Hospital in Elderly Patients Undergoing Surgery: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective. It is debated wheter intravenous (IV) lidocaine improves post-operative pain and has other potential benefits in elderly patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effect of perioperative continuous IV lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing surgery. Method. PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (through OVID SP) were searched independently until October 10, 2020 by two authors. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of continuous IV lidocaine and any placebo or no treatment in elderly patients after surgery. Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and post-operative pain score. Results. Eighteen studies (988 patients) were included. Meta-analysis suggested that IV lidocaine reduced the post-operative pain scores 2 hours (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.03 to −1.13), 4 hours (SMD:−1.20, 95% CI: −2.02 to −.39), 8 hours (SMD:−.82, 95% CI: −1.51 to −.13), 12 hours (SMD:−.66, 95% CI: −1.28 to −.04), and 24 hours (SMD:−.42, 95% CI: −.72 to −.12) post-operatively. Moreover, those patients given IV lidocaine had a shorter length of hospital stay (MD: −.24, 95% CI: −.71 to −.23) and required fewer opioid drugs (SMD: −.31, 95% CI: −.31 to −.01). Conclusion. The evidence suggested that IV lidocaine significantly reduced post-operative pain intensity and opioid consumption and shortened the length of hospital stay in elderly patients. IV lidocaine decreased the incidence of post-operative nausea while it could not reduce the incidence of post-operative vomiting and accelerate the recovery of gastrointestinal function.

The ALLEGRO trial: a placebo controlled randomised trial of intravenous lidocaine in accelerating gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery

Background

Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery.

Methods

United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6–12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function.

Discussion

A 6–12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS).

Trial registration

EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine for Bowel Function Recovery After Major Colorectal Surgery: A Critical Appraisal Through Updated Meta-Analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, Certainty of Evidence, and Meta-Regression

Background

Intravenous infusion of lidocaine (IVF-Lido) during the perioperative period is an option to accelerate bowel function recovery after major colorectal surgery. However, previous meta-analyses have shown inconsistent conclusions. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported after the publication of a previous meta-analysis.

Aim

We conducted an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis to determine the effects of IVF-Lido on time to first flatus and defecation after major colorectal surgery.

Methods

We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2020 guideline. Only RCTs were included. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was chosen for appraisal. Meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis was carried out. The Doi plot was presented to evaluate publication bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology was executed to evaluate the certainty of evidence (CoE).

Results

Thirteen RCTs with 696 participants were enrolled. IVF-Lido significantly decreased the time to first flatus [mean difference (MD) = −6.03 h; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−8.80, −3.26)] and first defecation [MD = −10.49 h; 95% CI: (−15.58, −5.41)]. Trial sequential analysis yielded identical results and ampleness of required information sizes. No obviousness in publication bias was detected, and the CoE in GRADE was low in both outcomes. Meta-regression showed that a significantly shorter time to the first defecation was associated with studies with more improvement in pain control in comparison of two groups and better-improved analgesia in the control group.

Conclusions

We discretionarily suggest the use of IVF-Lido on postoperative bowel function recovery following major colorectal surgery. Beyond the analgesic effects, IVF-Lido might have additional benefits when postoperative pain relief has already been achieved. Considering the high heterogeneity in this updated meta-analysis, more RCTs are needed.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-7-0023/, INPLASY [202070023].

Evaluating the Safety of Continuous Infusion Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and the impact on opioid requirements and pain scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, single-arm analysis of adult patients who received intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain from January 2016 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if they received lidocaine for any indication other than pain or if lidocaine was only given intraoperatively. The primary outcome of this analysis was to determine the incidence of adverse effects (AEs) and the reason for discontinuation of lidocaine. Secondary outcomes included median daily pain scores (visual analog scale and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool) and opioid consumption (daily morphine milligram equivalents) 24 hours before infusion and during day 1.

RESULTS

A total of 452 patients were evaluated of which 298 (65.9%) patients met inclusion criteria. Of the 154 patients excluded, 153 did not receive lidocaine postoperatively. The median duration of infusion was 34 [20:48] hours with a median initial and maintenance rate of 1 mg/kg/h dosed on ideal body weight. In our analysis, 174 (58.4%) patients had a documented AE during infusion and 38 (12.8%) had lidocaine discontinued because of an AE. The most common AE was nausea in 62 (20.8%) patients and the most common reason for discontinuation was confusion in 8 (2.7%) patients. Daily morphine milligram equivalents (P<0.001) and visual analog scale (P<0.001) significantly decreased when comparing 24 hours before infusion and day 1.

CONCLUSION

Although a majority of patients receiving lidocaine for postoperative pain experienced an AE, this did not result in discontinuation in most patients.

Comparison of treatment to improve gastrointestinal functions after colorectal surgery within enhanced recovery programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite a significant improvement with enhanced recovery programmes (ERP), gastro-intestinal (GI) functions that are impaired after colorectal resection and postoperative ileus (POI) remain a significant issue. In the literature, there is little evidence of the distinction between the treatment assessed within or outside ERP. The purpose was to evaluate the efficiency of treatments to reduce POI and improve GI function recovery within ERP. A search was performed in PubMed and Scopus on 20 September 2019. The studies were included if they compared the effect of the administration of a treatment aiming to treat or prevent POI or improve the early functional outcomes of colorectal surgery within an ERP. The main outcome measures were the occurrence of postoperative ileus, time to first flatus and time to first bowel movement. Treatments that were assessed at least three times were included in a meta-analysis. Among the analysed studies, 28 met the eligibility criteria. Six of them focused on chewing-gum and were only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 8 of them focused on Alvimopan but none of them were RCT. The other measures were assessed in less than 3 studies over RCTs (n = 11) or retrospective studies (n = 2). In the meta-analysis, chewing gum had no significant effect on the endpoints and Alvimopan allowed a significant reduction of the occurrence of POI. Chewing-gum was not effective on GI function recovery in ERP but Alvimopan and the other measures were not sufficiently studies to draw conclusion. Randomised controlled trials are needed.Systematic review registration number CRD42020167339.

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.

The impact of peri-operative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative outcome after elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There has recently been increasing interest in the use of peri-operative intravenous lidocaine (IVL) due to its analgesic, anti-inflammatory and opioid-sparing effects. However, these potential benefits are not well established in elective colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of peri-operative IVL infusion on postoperative outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing peri-operative IVL with placebo infusion in elective colorectal surgery. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain scores up to 48 h. The secondary outcome measures included time to return of gastrointestinal function, postoperative morphine requirement, anastomotic leak, local anaesthetic toxicity and hospital length of stay.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases were searched on 5 November 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were RCTs evaluating the role of peri-operative IVL vs. placebo in adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Exclusion criteria were paediatric patients, noncolorectal or emergency procedures, non-RCT methodology or lack of relevant outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included (n = 508 patients; 265 who had undergone IVL infusion, 243 who had undergone placebo infusion). IVL infusion was associated with a significant reduction in time to defecation (mean difference -12.06 h, 95% CI -17.83 to -6.29, I = 93%, P = 0.0001), hospital length of stay (mean difference -0.76 days, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.19, I = 45%, P = 0.009) and postoperative pain scores at early time points, although this difference does not meet the threshold for a clinically relevant difference. There was no difference in time to pass flatus (mean difference -5.33 h, 95% CI -11.53 to 0.88, I = 90%, P = 0.09), nor in rates of surgical site infection or anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides some support for the administration of peri-operative IVL infusion in elective colorectal surgery. However, further evidence is necessary to fully elucidate its potential benefits in light of the high levels of study heterogeneity and mixed quality of methodology.

A survey of perioperative intravenous lidocaine use by anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine administration by anaesthetists is purported to confer a variety of benefits across a range of surgical procedures. It remains unclear whether the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety is sufficient to influence Australasian practice broadly, and whether significant barriers to uptake exist. We therefore conducted a survey of Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists to evaluate patterns of lidocaine use, and perceptions relating to benefit and safety. Of 979 survey invitations, 295 (30.1%) responded. Of these, 51.9% of anaesthetists incorporate lidocaine administration into their practice. Amongst users, the most common indication is open abdominal or pelvic surgery (88.9%), with the principal intent of reducing acute pain and opioid use (both 92.2%). Only 51% perceive lidocaine to have a role in the prevention of chronic post-surgical pain, and less than a third administer it for operations strongly linked to this condition. Nearly all (91%) users deliver the drug by intraoperative bolus and infusion, with the majority using doses between 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg for both the bolus and the hourly infusion rate. When parallel local anaesthetic techniques are employed, 44.4% restrict the dose, 37.3% turn the lidocaine infusion off first and 15.7% make no modifications. Most respondents terminate infusions by the end of surgery (52.3%) or in the post-anaesthesia care unit (26.8%). Few deliver postoperative infusions without electrocardiographic monitoring (5.9%). There were no reports of life-threatening events. The dichotomy in Australasian use of perioperative lidocaine revealed by this survey confirms that large multicentre trials are now required to guide practice accurately.

The effects of intravenous lidocaine on wound pain and gastrointestinal function recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in relieving postoperative pain and promoting rehabilitation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, we conducted this meta-analysis. The systematic search strategy was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese databases, and Cochrane Library before September 2019. As a result, 10 randomised clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis (n = 527 patients). Intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced pain scores at 2, 4, 12, 24, and 48 hours on movement and 2, 4, and 12 hours on resting-state and reduced opioid requirement in first 24 hours postoperatively (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -5.02 [-9.34, -0.70]; P = .02). It also decreased the first flatus time (WMD: -10.15 [-11.20, -9.10]; P < .00001), first defecation time (WMD: -10.27 [-17.62, -2.92]; P = .006), length of hospital stay (WMD: -1.05 [-1.89, -0.21]; P = .01), and reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (risk ratio: 0.53 [0.30, 0.93]; P = .03) when compared with control group. However, it had no effect on pain scores at 24 and 48 hours at rest, the normal dietary time, and the level of serum C-reactive protein. In summary, perioperative intravenous lidocaine could alleviate acute pain, reduce postoperative analgesic requirements, and accelerate recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Meta-analysis of the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on return of gastrointestinal function after colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Return of normal gastrointestinal (GI) function is a critical determinant of recovery after colorectal surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine benefits return of gastrointestinal function after colorectal resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.org was performed on 1st July 2018. A manual search of reference lists was also performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intravenous (IV) lidocaine administered perioperatively compared to placebo (0.9% saline infusion) as part of a multimodal perioperative analgesic regimen, human adults (> 16 years), and open or laparoscopic colorectal resectional surgery.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

non-colorectal surgery, non-placebo comparator, children, non-general anaesthetic, and pharmacokinetic studies. The primary endpoint was time to first bowel movement. Secondary endpoints were time to first passage of flatus, time to toleration of diet, nausea and vomiting, ileus, pain scores, opioid analgesia consumption, and length of stay.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety one studies were screened, with 9 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria (405 patients, four laparoscopic and five open surgery studies). IV lidocaine reduced time to first bowel movement compared to placebo [seven studies, 325 patients, mean weighted difference - 9.54 h, 95% CI 18.72-0.36, p = 0.04]. Ileus, pain scores, and length of stay were reduced with IV lidocaine compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative IV lidocaine may improve recovery of gastrointestinal function after colorectal surgery. Large-scale effectiveness studies to measure effect size and evaluate optimum dose/duration are warranted.

Patient-Controlled Nutrition After Abdominal Surgery: Novel Concept Contrary to Surgical Dogma

Purpose

According to surgical dogma, patients who are recovering from general anesthesia after abdominal surgery should begin with a clear liquid diet, progress to a full liquid diet and then to a soft diet before taking regular meals. We propose patient-controlled nutrition (PCN), which is a novel concept in postoperative nutrition after abdominal surgery.

Methods

A retrospective pilot study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and effects of PCN. This study was carried out with a total of 179 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy between August 2014 and July 2016. In the PCN group, diet was advanced depending on the choice of the patients themselves; in the traditional group, diet was progressively advanced to a full liquid or soft diet and then a regular diet as tolerated. The primary endpoints were time to tolerance of regular diet and postoperative hospital stay.

Results

Time to tolerance of a regular diet (P < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) showed statistically significant differences between the groups. Multivariate analysis using linear regression showed that the traditional nutrition pattern was the only factor associated with postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis using logistic regression showed that traditional nutrition was the only risk factor associated with prolonged postoperative hospital stay (≥3 days).

Conclusion

After abdominal surgery, PCN may be a feasible and effective concept in postoperative nutrition. In our Early Recovery after Surgery program, our PCN concept may reduce the time to tolerance of a regular diet and shorten the postoperative hospital stay.

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.

Postoperative ileus following major colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ileus (POI) is characterized by delayed gastrointestinal recovery following surgery. Current knowledge of pathophysiology, clinical interventions and methodological challenges was reviewed to inform modern practice and future research.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed using search terms related to ileus and colorectal surgery. All RCTs involving an intervention to prevent or reduce POI published between 1990 and 2016 were identified. Grey literature, non-full-text manuscripts, and reanalyses of previous RCTs were excluded. Eligible articles were assessed using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of 5614 studies screened, 86 eligible articles describing 88 RCTs were identified. Current knowledge of pathophysiology acknowledges neurogenic, inflammatory and pharmacological mechanisms, but much of the evidence arises from animal studies. The most common interventions tested were chewing gum (11 trials) and early enteral feeding (11), which are safe but of unclear benefit for actively reducing POI. Others, including thoracic epidural analgesia (8), systemic lidocaine (8) and peripheral μ antagonists (5), show benefit but require further investigation for safety and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

POI is a common condition with no established definition, aetiology or treatment. According to current literature, minimally invasive surgery, protocol-driven recovery (including early feeding and opioid avoidance strategies) and measures to avoid major inflammatory events (such as anastomotic leak) offer the best chances of reducing POI.

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.

ACERTO guidelines of perioperative nutritional interventions in elective general surgery

ABSTRACT Objective: to present recommendations based on the ACERTO Project (Acceleration of Total Post-Operative Recovery) and supported by evidence related to perioperative nutritional care in General Surgery elective procedures. Methods: review of relevant literature from 2006 to 2016, based on a search conducted in the main databases, with the purpose of answering guiding questions previously formulated by specialists, within each theme of this guideline. We preferably used randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyzes but also selected some cohort studies. We contextualized each recommendation-guiding question to determine the quality of the evidence and the strength of this recommendation (GRADE). This material was sent to authors using an open online questionnaire. After receiving the answers, we formalized the consensus for each recommendation of this guideline. Results: the level of evidence and the degree of recommendation for each item is presented in text form, followed by a summary of the evidence found. Conclusion: this guideline reflects the recommendations of the group of specialists of the Brazilian College of Surgeons, the Brazilian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the ACERTO Project for nutritional interventions in the perioperative period of Elective General Surgery. The prescription of these recommendations can accelerate the postoperative recovery of patients submitted to elective general surgery, with decrease in morbidity, length of stay and rehospitalization, and consequently, of costs.