Intravenous lignocaine in colorectal surgery: a systematic review

The EUPEMEN (EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking) Protocol for Bowel Obstruction: Recommendations for Perioperative Care

Mechanical bowel obstruction is a common symptom for admission to emergency services, diagnosed annually in more than 300,000 patients in the States, from whom 51% will undergo emergency laparotomy. This condition is associated with serious morbidity and mortality, but it also causes a high financial burden due to long hospital stay. The EUPEMEN project aims to incorporate the expertise and clinical experience of national clinical specialists into development of perioperative rehabilitation protocols. Providing special recommendations for all aspects of patient perioperative care and the participation of diverse specialists, the EUPEMEN protocol for bowel obstruction, as presented in the current paper, aims to provide faster postoperative recovery and reduce length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rate.

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.

Influence of Perioperative Anesthesia on Cancer Recurrence: from Basic Science to Clinical Practice

PURPOSEOF REVIEW

In this review, we will summarize the effects of these perioperative anesthetics and anesthetic interventions on the immune system and tumorigenesis as well as address the related clinical evidence on cancer-related mortality and recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For many solid tumors, surgery is one of the major therapies. Unfortunately, surgery promotes angiogenesis, shedding of circulating cancer cells, and suppresses immunity. Hence, the perioperative period has a close relationship with cancer metastases or recurrence. In the perioperative period, patients require multiple anesthetic management including anesthetics, anesthetic techniques, and body temperature control. Preclinical and retrospective studies have found that these anesthetic agents and interventions have complex effects on cancer outcomes. Therefore, well-planned, prospective, randomized controlled trials are required to explore the effects of different anesthetics and techniques on long-term outcomes after cancer surgery. Due to the conflicting effects of anesthetic management on cancer recurrence, further preclinical and clinical trials are required and beneficial to the development of systemic cancer therapies.

Alvimopan retains efficacy in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an established ERAS program

BACKGROUND

Post-operative ileus and delayed return of gastrointestinal function are complications seen frequently in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Many enhanced recovery after surgery protocols include alvimopan to inhibit the effects of opiates in the gastrointestinal tract and lidocaine to augment analgesics. Limited data exist regarding alvimopan's efficacy in opiate-sparing regimens.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective cohort analysis was conducted in a randomly selected population of adult patients undergoing colorectal resection between February 2018 and October 2019. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were divided into four groups dependent upon whether or not they received alvimopan (A or a) and/or lidocaine (L or l). The primary endpoint in this study was median time to first bowel movement or discharge, whichever came first. Our secondary endpoint was length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 430 patients evaluated, a total of 192 patients were included in the final evaluation in the following groups: AL (n = 93), Al (n = 34), aL (n = 44), and al (n = 21). A significant difference was found among the groups for the primary outcome of median time to bowel movement or discharge (p = 0.001). Three subsequent pair-wise comparisons resulted in a significant difference in the primary outcome: group AL 39.4 h vs. group aL 54.0 h (p = 0.003), group AL 39.4 h vs. group al 55.4 h (p = 0.001), and group Al 44.9 h vs. group al 55.4 h (p = 0.01). Length of stay was significantly reduced by 1.8 days in groups AL and Al compared to group aL (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with alvimopan resulted in a significant improvement in time to GI recovery and decreased length of stay in an established ERAS program. While lidocaine's reduction in opiates was minimal, the group receiving both alvimopan and lidocaine had the greatest reduction in time to GI recovery and length of stay.

Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Techniques using local anaesthetics provide high-quality analgesia, while the anti-inflammatory properties of these drugs may represent an additional advantage. Perioperative intravenous lidocaine has shown positive effects not only on postoperative pain but also on bowel function and duration of hospital stay, due to its analgesic, anti-inflammatory and opioid-sparing effects. However, these potential benefits are not well established in patients undergoing resection with colorectal cancer. This research aims to determine the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed and WanFang Data databases were electronically retrieved to include the randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative intravenous lidocaine with placebo infusion in patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer before August 2021. Registers of clinical trials, potential grey literature and abstracts from conferences will also be searched. Two reviewers will screen literature, extract data and assess risk of bias of studies included independently. The primary outcome variable will be long-term survival outcome, tumour recurrence and metastasis rate, and restoration of intestinal function. The secondary outcome variables will consist of the severity of postoperative pain at 4, 12, 24 and 48 hours after surgery, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and the length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and Stata V.12.0. subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Because the data used for this systematic review will be exclusively extracted from published studies, ethical approval and informed consent of patients will not be required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and shared on social media platforms.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020216232.

Local Anesthetics and Recurrence after Cancer Surgery-What's New? A Narrative Review

The perioperative use of regional anesthesia and local anesthetics is part of almost every anesthesiologist’s daily clinical practice. Retrospective analyses and results from experimental studies pointed towards a potential beneficial effect of the local anesthetics regarding outcome—i.e., overall and/or recurrence-free survival—in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The perioperative period, where the anesthesiologist is responsible for the patients, might be crucial for the further course of the disease, as circulating tumor cells (shed from the primary tumor into the patient’s bloodstream) might form new micro-metastases independent of complete tumor removal. Due to their strong anti-inflammatory properties, local anesthetics might have a certain impact on these circulating tumor cells, either via direct or indirect measures, for example via blunting the inflammatory stress response as induced by the surgical stimulus. This narrative review highlights the foundation of these principles, features recent experimental and clinical data and provides an outlook regarding current and potential future research activities.

Intravenous Local Anesthetic Compared with Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetic in Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Controlling perioperative pain is essential to improving patient experience and satisfaction following surgery. Traditionally opioids have been frequently utilised for postoperative analgesia. Although they are effective at controlling pain, they are associated with adverse effects, including postoperative nausea, vomiting, ileus and long-term opioid dependency.Following laparoscopic colectomy, the use of intravenous or intraperitoneal infusions of lidocaine (IVL, IPL) are promising emerging analgesic options. Although both techniques are promising, there have been no direct, prospective randomized comparisons in patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection. The purpose of this study was to compare IPL with IVL.

METHODS

Double blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection. The two groups received equal doses of either IPL or IVL which commenced intra-operatively with a bolus followed by a continuous infusion for 3 days postoperatively. Patients were cared for through a standardized ERAS program. The primary outcome was total post-operative opioid consumption over the first three post-operative days. Patients were followed for 60 days.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the IVL or IPL groups. Total opioid consumption over the first three post-operative days was significantly lower in the IPL group (70.9 mg vs 157.8 mg p < 0.05) and overall opioid consumption during the total length of stay was also significantly lower (80.3 mg vs 187.36 mg p < 0.05. Pain scores were significantly lower at two hours post-operatively in the IPL group, however, all other time points were not significant. There were no differences in complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative use of IPL results in a significant reduction in opioid consumption following laparoscopic colon surgery when compared to IVL. This suggests that the peritoneal cavity/compartment is a strategic target for local anesthetic administration. Future ERAS recommendations should consider IPL as an important component of a multimodal pain strategy following colectomy.

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.

Network meta-analysis of local and regional analgesia following colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management after colorectal surgery remains challenging. Systemic opiates delivered on demand or via a patient-controlled pump have traditionally been the mainstay of treatment. Opiate analgesia is associated with slower gastrointestinal recovery and unpleasant side-effects; many regional and local analgesic techniques have been developed as alternatives.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched systematically for RCTs comparing analgesic techniques after major colorectal resection. A network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian random-effects framework with a non-informative prior. Primary outcomes included pain at rest and cumulative opiate consumption 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included pain at rest and cumulative opiate consumption at 48 h, pain on movement and cough at 24 and 48 h, time to first stool, time to tolerance of oral diet, duration of hospital stay, nausea and vomiting, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Seventy-four RCTs, including 5101 patients and 11 different techniques, were included. Some inconsistency and heterogeneity was found. SUCRA scores showed that spinal analgesia was the best intervention for postoperative pain and opiate reduction at 24 h. Transversus abdominus plane blocks were effective in reducing pain and opiate consumption 24 h after surgery. Subgroup analysis showed similar results for open versus minimally invasive surgical approaches, and enhanced recovery after surgery programmes.

CONCLUSION

Spinal analgesia and transversus abdominus plane blocks best balanced pain control and opiate minimization in the immediate postoperative phase following colorectal resection. Multimodal analgesia reduces pain, minimizes systemic opiate use and optimizes postoperative recovery.

[Is postoperative acute pain control in colorectal surgery better within an enhanced recovery after surgery program (ERAS)?]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A good acute pain control is necessary to achieve the main objective of Enhanced recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs and accelerate recovery. The study objective is to evaluate postoperative (PO) acute pain, PO opioid consumption, and its association with functional recovery, after implementing a colorectal surgery ERAS program. An analysis was made as regards drugs adverse effects.

METHODS

Observational cohort study on scheduled colorectal Surgery: one prospective cohort subjected to the ERAS care program, and one retrospective cohort that received traditional non-standardised care. A record was made of mean pain intensity (measured by a visual analogue scale, which classifies pain intensity from 0 to 10, from lower to higher intensity), as well as the amount of opioid consumption on the day of surgery and on the first three postoperative days, and drugs adverse effects. An analysis was made of the association between PO opioid consumption and ERAS program, and between PO opioid consumption and functional recovery.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 410 patients (313 in the ERAS group and 97 in the control group). In the ERAS group, it was observed that the mean visual analogue scale was less than 2, with a smaller amount of PO opioid consumption, on each single day and the accumulated amount of the four days (4 [0-24] vs. 0 [0-4], P<.001). PO opioid consumption was associated with functional recovery (OR 0.97 [95% CI; 0.96-0.99], P=.011). No drugs adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

After implementing a colorectal Surgery ERAS program, good pain control was achieved, as well as a reduction in PO opioid consumption, which is associated with functional recovery. No drugs adverse effects were observed.

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.

Mobilization of CD4+ T lymphocytes in inflamed mucosa reduces pain in colitis mice: toward a vaccinal strategy to alleviate inflammatory visceral pain

T lymphocytes play a pivotal role in endogenous regulation of inflammatory visceral pain. The analgesic activity of T lymphocytes is dependent on their production of opioids, a property acquired on antigen activation. Accordingly, we investigated whether an active recruitment of T lymphocytes within inflamed colon mucosa via a local vaccinal strategy may counteract inflammation-induced visceral pain in mice. Mice were immunized against ovalbumin (OVA). One month after immunization, colitis was induced by adding 3% (wt/vol) dextran sulfate sodium into drinking water containing either cognate antigen OVA or control antigen bovine serum albumin for 5 days. Noncolitis OVA-primed mice were used as controls. Visceral sensitivity was then determined by colorectal distension. Oral administration of OVA but not bovine serum albumin significantly reduced dextran sulfate sodium-induced abdominal pain without increasing colitis severity in OVA-primed mice. Analgesia was dependent on local release of enkephalins by effector anti-OVA T lymphocytes infiltrating the inflamed mucosa. The experiments were reproduced with the bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine as antigen. Similarly, inflammatory visceral pain was dramatically alleviated in mice vaccinated against bacillus Calmette-Guerin and then locally administered with live Mycobacterium bovis. Together, these results show that the induction of a secondary adaptive immune response against vaccine antigens in inflamed mucosa may constitute a safe noninvasive strategy to relieve from visceral inflammatory pain.

The analgesic effects of intraoperative total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol versus sevoflurane after colorectal surgery

Clinical studies have shown that total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol is associated with better postoperative pain control compared with inhalational anesthesia, while other studies have not shown any benefit. The analgesic effect of TIVA with propofol in colorectal surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the postoperative analgesic effects of TIVA with propofol versus inhalational sevoflurane in colorectal surgery.This is a retrospective case-control study. Records of patients undergoing colorectal surgery from 2014 to 2016 (36 months) were retrieved. Ninety-five patients who received TIVA with propofol were matched against 95 patients who received inhalational sevoflurane. Acute postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, patient satisfaction, and side effects were compared and analyzed for differences between TIVA with propofol and sevoflurane.There were no significant differences in NRS pain scores, incidence of side effects, and patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. Patients receiving TIVA with propofol had significantly reduced total morphine consumption (P < .001), and daily morphine consumption on postoperative days 1 (P = .031), 2 (P = .002), and 3 (P = .031) compared with those receiving sevoflurane.TIVA with propofol was not associated with improved postoperative analgesia, better patient satisfaction, or reduced side effects. It may reduce postoperative opioid consumption after colorectal surgery.