The Interaction Effect of Perioperative Cotreatment with Dextromethorphan and Intravenous Lidocaine on Pain Relief and Recovery of Bowel Function After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

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.

Effects of intravenous infusion of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine on inhibiting cough during the tracheal extubation period after thyroid surgery

Background

Intravenous lidocaine and dexmedetomidine treatments have been proposed as methods for inhibiting cough. We compared the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine and dexmedetomidine treatments on inhibiting cough during the tracheal extubation period after thyroid surgery.

Methods

One hundred eighty patients undergoing thyroid surgeries were randomly allocated to the LIDO group (received lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg loading, 1.5 mg/kg/h infusion), the DEX group (received dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg loading, 0.4 μg/kg/h infusion) and the CON group (received saline), with 60 cases in each group. The primary outcomes of cough were recorded. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, awareness time, volume of drainage, the postoperative visual analogue scale and adverse effects were recorded.

Results

The incidence of cough were significantly lower in the LIDO group (28.3%) and the DEX group (31.7%) than that in the CON group (66.7%) (P = 0.000). Additionally, both moderate and severe cough were significantly lower in the LIDO group (13.3%) and the DEX group (13.4%) than these in the CON group (43.4%) (P < 0.05). Compared with the two treatment groups, both mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate were significantly increased in the CON group during tracheal extubation (P < 0.05). Compared with the CON group, the volume of drainage was significantly reduced in the two treatment groups within 48 h after surgery (P < 0.05). compared with the CON group, the postoperative visual analogue scale was significantly lower in groups LIDO and DEX after surgery(P < 0.05). Compared with the LIDO group and the CON group, the time to awareness was longer in the DEX group (P < 0.05). In the DEX group, bradycardia was noted in 35 patients, while no bradycardia was noted in LIDO group and CON group.

Conclusion

Compared with intravenous infusions of normal saline, both lidocaine and dexmedetomidine had equal effectiveness in attenuating cough and hemodynamic changes during the tracheal extubation period after thyroid surgery, and both of these treatments were able to reduce the volume of postoperative bleeding and provide better analgesic effect after surgery. But intravenous infusions of dexmedetomidine resulted in bradycardia and delayed the time to awareness when compared with lidocaine and normal saline.

Trial registration

ChiCTR1800017482. (Prospective registered). Initial registration date was 01/08/2018.

Intravenous lidocaine as adjuvant to general anesthesia in renal surgery

The role of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion has been previously evaluated for pain relief, inflammatory response, and post-operative recovery, particularly in abdominal surgery. The present study is a randomized double-blinded trial in which we evaluated whether IV lidocaine infusion reduces isoflurane requirement, intraoperative remifentanil consumption and time to post-operative recovery in non-laparoscopic renal surgery. Sixty patients scheduled to undergo elective non-laparoscopic renal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled to receive either systemic lidocaine infusion (group L: bolus 1.5 mg/kg followed by a continuous infusion at the rate of 2 mg/kg/hr until skin closure) or normal saline (0.9% NaCl solution) (Group C). The depth of anesthesia was monitored using the Bispectral Index Scale (BIS), which is based on measurement of the patient’s cerebral electrical activity. Primary outcome of the study was End-tidal of isoflurane concentration (Et-Iso) at BIS values of 40–60. Secondary outcomes include remifentanil consumption during the operation and time to extubation. Et-Iso was significantly lower in group L than in group C (0.63% ± 0.10% vs 0.92% ± 0.11%, p < 10^–3). Mean remifentanil consumption of was significantly lower in group L than in group C (0.13 ± 0.04 µg/kg/min vs 0.18 ± 0.04 µg/kg/min, p < 10^–3). Thus, IV lidocaine infusion permits a reduction of 31% in isoflurane concentration requirement and 27% in the intraoperative remifentanil need. In addition, recovery from anesthesia and extubation time was shorter in group L (5.8 ± 1.8 min vs 7.9 ± 2.0 min, p < 10^–3). By reducing significantly isoflurane and remifentanil requirements during renal surgery, intravenous lidocaine could provide effective strategy to limit volatile agent and intraoperative opioids consumption especially in low and middle income countries.

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.

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.

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.

Lidocaine Infusion: A Promising Therapeutic Approach for Chronic Pain

Opioid abuse is a national epidemic in the United States, where it is estimated that a prescription drug overdose death occurs every 19 minutes. While opioids are highly effective in acute and subacute pain control, their use for treatment of chronic pain is controversial. Chronic opioids use is associated with tolerance, dependency, hyperalgesia. Although there are new strategies and practice guidelines to reduce opioid dependence and opioid prescription drug overdose, there has been little focus on development of opioid-sparing therapeutic approaches. Lidocaine infusion has been shown to be successful in controlling pain where other agents have failed. The opioid sparing properties of lidocaine infusion added to its analgesic and antihyperalgesic properties make lidocaine infusion a viable option for pain control in opioid dependent patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the opioid abuse epidemic, and we outline current evidence supporting the potential use of lidocaine infusion as an adjuvant therapeutic approach for management of chronic pain.

Laparoscopic surgery: a narrative review of pharmacotherapy in pain management

Laparoscopic surgery is widespread, and an increasing number of surgeries are performed laparoscopically. Early pain after laparoscopy can be similar or even more severe than that after open surgery. Thus, proactive pain management should be provided. Pain after laparoscopic surgery is derived from multiple origins; therefore, a single agent is seldom sufficient. Pain is most effectively controlled by a multimodal, preventive analgesia approach, such as combining opioids with non-opioid analgesics and local anaesthetics. Wound and port site local anaesthetic injections decrease abdominal wall pain by 1-1.5 units on a 0-10 pain scale. Inflammatory pain and shoulder pain can be controlled by NSAIDs or corticosteroids. In some patient groups, adjuvant drugs, ketamine and α2-adrenergic agonists can be helpful, but evidence on gabapentinoids is conflicting. In the present review, the types of pain that need to be taken into account while planning pain management protocols and the wide range of analgesic options that have been assessed in laparoscopic surgery are critically assessed. Recommendations to the clinician will be made regarding how to manage acute pain and how to prevent persistent postoperative pain. It is important to identify patients at the highest risk for severe and prolonged post-operative pain, and to have a proactive strategy in place for these individuals.

Perioperative Dextromethorphan as an Adjunct for Postoperative Pain: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists have been shown to reduce perioperative pain and opioid use. The authors performed a meta-analysis to determine whether the use of perioperative dextromethorphan lowers opioid consumption or pain scores.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubget, and EMBASE were searched. Studies were included if they were randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials written in English, and performed on patients 12 yr or older. For comparison of opioid use, included studies tracked total consumption of IV or intramuscular opioids over 24 to 48 h. Pain score comparisons were performed at 1, 4 to 6, and 24 h postoperatively. Difference in means (MD) was used for effect size.

RESULTS

Forty studies were identified and 21 were eligible for one or more comparisons. In 848 patients from 14 trials, opioid consumption favored dextromethorphan (MD, -10.51 mg IV morphine equivalents; 95% CI, -16.48 to -4.53 mg; P = 0.0006). In 884 patients from 13 trials, pain at 1 h favored dextromethorphan (MD, -1.60; 95% CI, -1.89 to -1.31; P < 0.00001). In 950 patients from 13 trials, pain at 4 to 6 h favored dextromethorphan (MD, -0.89; 95% CI, -1.11 to -0.66; P < 0.00001). In 797 patients from 12 trials, pain at 24 h favored dextromethorphan (MD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.24 to -0.60; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that dextromethorphan use perioperatively reduces the postoperative opioid consumption at 24 to 48 h and pain scores at 1, 4 to 6, and 24 h.

Effect of peri-operative intravenous infusion of lignocaine on haemodynamic responses to intubation, extubation and post-operative analgesia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lignocaine in intravenous (IV) bolus dose has been used for minimising haemodynamic changes associated with intubation and extubation. Furthermore, IV infusion has been used for post-operative analgesia. We investigated whether IV peri-operative lignocaine (bolus and infusion) would be able to produce both the effects simultaneously in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

METHODS

In this randomised prospective study, 60 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. In Group A, patients received 6 ml normal saline as bolus over 10 min followed by 6 ml/h infusion whereas in Group B, patients received preservative free 2% lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg IV bolus (made to a volume of 6 ml with normal saline) administered over a period of 10 min and thereafter an infusion at a rate of 1.5 mg/kg/h (pre-diluted in normal saline made to a volume of 6 ml/h. P < 0.05 was considered as significant.

RESULTS

The rise in pulse rate (PR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were less in Group B as compared to the Group A (P < 0.05) during intubation as well as during extubation. Furthermore, the Group B had significant longer mean pain-free post-operative period of 5½ h as compared to 54.43 min in the Group A (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Administration of lignocaine infusion attenuates the rise in PR as well as MAP during the peri-intubation and peri-extubation period. Furthermore, infusion of lignocaine significantly increases the mean pain-free period post-operatively.

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.

Effects of lidocaine and esmolol infusions on hemodynamic changes, analgesic requirement, and recovery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effects of lidocaine and esmolol infusions on intraoperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements, and recovery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery.

METHODS

The first group (n=30) received IV lidocaine infusions at a rate of 1.5mg/kg/min and the second group (n=30) received IV esmolol infusions at a rate of 1mg/kg/min. Hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative analgesic requirements, and recovery characteristics were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the lidocaine group, systolic arterial blood pressures values were lower after the induction of anesthesia and at 20min following surgical incision (p<0.05). Awakening time was shorter in the esmolol group (p<0.001); Ramsay Sedation Scale scores at 10min after extubation were lower in the esmolol group (p<0.05). The modified Aldrete scores at all measurement time points during the recovery period were relatively lower in the lidocaine group (p<0.05). The time to attain a modified Aldrete score of ≥9 points was prolonged in the lidocaine group (p<0.01). Postoperative resting and dynamic VAS scores were higher in the lidocaine group at 10 and 20min after extubation (p<0.05, p<0.01, respectively). Analgesic supplements were less frequently required in the lidocaine group (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

In laparoscopic cholecystectomies, lidocaine infusion had superiorities over esmolol infusions regarding the suppression of responses to tracheal extubation and postoperative need for additional analgesic agents in the long run, while esmolol was more advantageous with respect to rapid recovery from anesthesia, attenuation of early postoperative pain, and modified Aldrete recovery (MAR) scores and time to reach MAR score of 9 points.

Efficacy of intraperitoneal and intravenous lidocaine on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated intraperitoneal (IP) lidocaine administration and intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent LC were randomized to either group IV (intravenous lidocaine infusion), group IP (intraperitoneal lidocaine administration), or group C (control, IP and IV saline). Outcome measures were total postoperative pain severity (TPPS), total fentanyl consumption (TFC), frequency of administering patient-controlled analgesia (FPB), and a pain control satisfaction score (PCSS).

RESULTS

Significantly reduced TPPS, TFC and FPB scores were observed in groups IP (n = 22) and IV (n = 26) compared with controls (n = 24). PCSS was higher in groups IP and IV than in controls. At 2 h postoperation, TPPS was significantly lower in group IP than group IV; at 0-2 h postoperation, FPB was lower in group IP than group IV.

CONCLUSIONS

The IP administration of lidocaine and IV lidocaine infusion significantly reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption in LC patients, compared with control infusions. For convenience, IV lidocaine could be used for pain reduction following LC; IP administration places additional burden on the surgeon.

[Effect of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine on pain and plasma interleukin-6 in patients undergoing hysterectomy]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a predictor of trauma severity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on pain severity and plasma IL-6 after hysterectomy.

METHOD

A prospective, randomized, comparative, double-blind study with 40 patients, aged 18-60 years. G1 received lidocaine (2mg.kg(-1).h(-1)) or G2 received 0.9% saline solution during the operation. Anesthesia was induced with O2/isoflurane. Pain severity (T0: awake and 6, 12, 18 and 24hours), first analgesic request, and dose of morphine in 24hours were evaluated. IL-6 was measured before starting surgery (T0), five hours after the start (T5), and 24hours after the end of surgery (T24).

RESULTS

There was no difference in pain severity between groups. There was a decrease in pain severity between T0 and other measurement times in G1. Time to first supplementation was greater in G2 (76.0±104.4min) than in G1 (26.7±23.3min). There was no difference in supplemental dose of morphine between G1 (23.5±12.6mg) and G2 (18.7±11.3mg). There were increased concentrations of IL-6 in both groups from T0 to T5 and T24. There was no difference in IL-6 dosage between groups. Lidocaine concentration was 856.5±364.1 ng.mL(-1) in T5 and 30.1±14.2 ng.mL(-1) in T24.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine (2mg.kg(-1).h(-1)) did not reduce pain severity and plasma levels of IL-6 in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

Opioid-free total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, dexmedetomidine and lidocaine infusions for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Intraoperative use of opioids may be associated with postoperative hyperalgesia and increased analgesic consumption. Side effects due to perioperative use of opioids, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting may delay discharge. We hypothesized that total intravenous anesthesia consisting of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute may be an alternative technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and would be associated with lower fentanyl requirements in the postoperative period and less incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

80 Anesthesiologists I-II adults were scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups to have either opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, and propofol infusions (Group DL) or opioid-based anesthesia with remifentanil, and propofol infusions (Group RF). All patients received a standard multimodal analgesia regimen. A patient controlled analgesia device was set to deliver IV fentanyl for 6h after surgery. The primary outcome variable was postoperative fentanyl consumption.

RESULTS

Fentanyl consumption at postoperative 2nd hour was statistically significantly less in Group DL, compared with Group RF, which were 75 ± 59 μg and 120 ± 94 μg respectively, while it was comparable at postoperative 6th hour. During anesthesia, there were more hypotensive events in Group RF, while there were more hypertensive events in Group DL, which were both statistically significant. Despite higher recovery times, Group DL had significantly lower pain scores, rescue analgesic and ondansetron need.

CONCLUSION

Opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, lidocaine and propofol infusions may be an alternative technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy especially in patients with high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention or treatment of postoperative pain in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day-surgery and overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and anticonvulsant analgesics in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different analgesics in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different pharmacological interventions with no intervention or inactive controls for outcomes related to benefit in this review. We considered comparative non-randomised studies with regards to treatment-related harms. We also considered trials that compared one class of drug with another class of drug for this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials with 2505 participants randomised to the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls. All the trials were at unclear risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Participants were allowed to take additional analgesics as required in 24 of the trials. The pharmacological interventions in all the included trials were aimed at preventing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were considerable differences in the pharmacological agents used and the methods of administration. The estimated effects of the intervention on the proportion of participants who were discharged as day-surgery, the length of hospital stay, or the time taken to return to work were imprecise in all the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported (very low quality evidence). There was no mortality in any of the groups in the two trials that reported mortality (183 participants, very low quality evidence). Differences in serious morbidity outcomes between the groups were imprecise across all the comparisons (very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported patient quality of life or time taken to return to normal activity. The pain at 4 to 8 hours was generally reduced by about 1 to 2 cm on the visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 cm in the comparisons involving the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls (low or very low quality evidence). The pain at 9 to 24 hours was generally reduced by about 0.5 cm (a modest reduction) on the visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 cm in the comparisons involving the different pharmacological agents and inactive controls (low or very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of very low quality that different pharmacological agents including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioid analgesics, and anticonvulsant analgesics reduce pain scores in people at low anaesthetic risk undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the decision to use these drugs has to weigh the clinically small reduction in pain against uncertain evidence of serious adverse events associated with many of these agents. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Medical management of acute pain in patients with chronic pain

The number of patients with chronic pain has increased over the years, as well as the number of patients who manage chronic pain with opioids. As prescribed opioid use has increased, so has its abuse and misuse. It has also been estimated that the number of people using opioids illicitly has doubled worldwide over the last 20 years. Management of chronic pain with opioids is associated with pathophysiological phenomena such as tolerance, dependence and hyperalgesia. They can become a problem when chronic pain patients present for a surgical procedure. Furthermore, patients who are on opioids on a regular basis require higher amounts during the perioperative period. The perioperative management of the chronic pain patient is difficult and complex. Developing an appropriate plan that can fulfill patients' and surgical team's needs requires skills and experience. The aim of this review is to describe the options available for the optimal perioperative management of acute pain in patients with a history of chronic pain.

Preventive analgesia by local anesthetics: the reduction of postoperative pain by peripheral nerve blocks and intravenous drugs

The use of local anesthetics to reduce acute postoperative pain has a long history, but recent reports have not been systematically reviewed. In addition, the need to include only those clinical studies that meet minimum standards for randomization and blinding must be adhered to. In this review, we have applied stringent clinical study design standards to identify publications on the use of perioperative local anesthetics. We first examined several types of peripheral nerve blocks, covering a variety of surgical procedures, and second, we examined the effects of intentionally administered IV local anesthetic (lidocaine) for suppression of postoperative pain. Thirdly, we have examined publications in which vascular concentrations of local anesthetics were measured at different times after peripheral nerve block procedures, noting the incidence when those levels reached ones achieved during intentional IV administration. Importantly, the very large number of studies using neuraxial blockade techniques (epidural, spinal) has not been included in this review but will be dealt with separately in a later review. The overall results showed a strongly positive effect of local anesthetics, by either route, for suppressing postoperative pain scores and analgesic (opiate) consumption. In only a few situations were the effects equivocal. Enhanced effectiveness with the addition of adjuvants was not uniformly apparent. The differential benefits between drug delivery before, during, or immediately after a surgical procedure are not obvious, and a general conclusion is that the significant antihyperalgesic effects occur when the local anesthetic is present during the acute postoperative period, and its presence during surgery is not essential for this action.

Perioperative systemic lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management remains a significant challenge after abdominal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of systemic lidocaine for postoperative pain management and recovery after abdominal surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Data were derived from Medline (1966-2010), CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of systemic administration of lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after abdominal surgery in adults, ie, >18 years, were considered.

INTERVENTIONS

Combined data were analyzed with use of a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Data on opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, opioid-related side effects, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-one trials comparing systemic lidocaine with placebo or blank control for postoperative analgesia and recovery after abdominal surgery were included in this meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference for cumulative analgesic opioid (morphine) consumption 48 hours after surgery was -7.04 mg (95% CI: -10.40, -3.68, I2= 46.1%).Systemic lidocaine also significantly reduced postoperative pain intensity(visual analog scale, 0-100 mm) 6 hours after surgery at rest (weighted mean difference: -8.07 mm (95% CI: -14.69, -1.49); I2 = 90.6%) and during activity (weighted mean difference: -10.56 mm (95% CI: -16.89, -4.23), I2 = 82%). The time to first flatus and bowel movement was significantly shortened with lidocaine intervention by 6.92 hours (95% CI: -9.21, -4.63, I2 = 62.8%) and 11.74 hours (95% CI:-16.97, -6.51, I2 = 0). Moreover, systemic lidocaine also reduced hospital length of stay following the open procedure (weighted mean difference: -0.71 days (95% CI: -1.35, -0.07); I2 = 37.3%).

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of study results is the main limitation of this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative systemic lidocaine may be a useful adjunct for postoperative pain management by decreasing postoperative pain intensity, reducing opioid consumption, facilitating GI function, and shortening length of hospital stay.

Meta-analysis of intravenous lidocaine and postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery

Background

Continuous intravenous administration of lidocaine may decrease the duration of ileus and pain after abdominal surgery.

Methods

Three databases (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials comparing continuous intravenous lidocaine infusion during and after abdominal surgery with placebo. Study design was scored using the Oxford Quality Score based on randomization, double-blinding and follow-up. Outcome measures were duration of ileus, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Results

Eight trials were selected. A total of 161 patients received intravenous lidocaine, with 159 controls. Intravenous lidocaine administration decreased the duration of ileus (weighted mean difference (WMD) − 8·36 h; P &lt; 0·001), length of hospital stay (WMD − 0·84 days; P = 0·002), postoperative pain intensity at 24 h after operation on a 0–100-mm visual analogue scale (WMD − 5·93 mm; P = 0·002), and the incidence of nausea and vomiting (odds ratio 0·39; P = 0·006).

Conclusion

Continuous intravenous administration of lidocaine during and after abdominal surgery improves patient rehabilitation and shortens hospital stay.

Lack of impact of intravenous lidocaine on analgesia, functional recovery, and nociceptive pain threshold after total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The analgesic effect of perioperative low doses of intravenous lidocaine has been demonstrated after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to evaluate whether a continuous intravenous low-dose lidocaine infusion reduced postoperative pain and modified nociceptive pain threshold after total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

Sixty patients participated in this randomized double-blinded study. Patients received lidocaine 1% (lidocaine group) with a 1.5 mg/kg intravenous bolus in 10 min followed by a 1.5 mg . kg . h intravenous infusion or saline (control group). These regimens were started 30 min before surgical incision and stopped 1h after skin closure. Lidocaine blood concentrations were measured at the end of administration. In both groups, postoperative analgesia was provided exclusively by patient-controlled intravenous morphine. Pain scores, morphine consumption, and operative hip flexion were recorded over 48 h. In addition, pressure pain thresholds and the extent of hyperalgesia around surgical incision were systematically measured at 24 and 48 h.

RESULTS

In comparison with the placebo, lidocaine did not induce any opioid-sparing effect during the first 24 h (median [25-75% interquartile range]; 17 mg [9-28] vs. 15 mg [8-23]; P = 0.54). There was no significant difference regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on pain score, pressure pain thresholds, extent in the area of hyperalgesia, and maximal degree of active hip flexion tolerated. Mean plasma lidocaine concentration was 2.1 +/- 0.4 mug/ml.

CONCLUSION

Low dose perioperative intravenous lidocaine after total hip arthroplasty offers no beneficial effect on postoperative analgesia and does not modify pressure and tactile pain thresholds.

Phase 1A safety assessment of intravenous amitriptyline

The antidepressant amitriptyline is used as an adjuvant in the treatment of chronic pain. Among its many actions, amitriptyline blocks Na+ channels and nerves in several animal and human models. As perioperative intravenous lidocaine has been suggested to decrease postoperative pain, amitriptyline, because of its longer half-life time, might be more useful than lidocaine. However, the use of intravenous amitriptyline is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. We therefore investigated the adverse effects of preoperative intravenous amitriptyline in a typical phase 1A trial. After obtaining written Food and Drug Administration and institutional review board approval, we obtained written consent for preoperative infusion of amitriptyline in an open-label, dose-escalating design (25, 50, and 100 mg, n=5 per group). Plasma levels of amitriptyline/nortriptyline were determined, and adverse effects were recorded in a predetermined symptom list. Infusion of 25 and 50 mg amitriptyline appears to be well tolerated; however, the study was terminated when 1 subject in the 100-mg group developed severe bradycardia. Intravenous infusion of amitriptyline (25 to 50 mg over 1 hour) did not create side effects beyond dry mouth and drowsiness, or dizziness, in 2 of our 10 otherwise healthy participants receiving the 25- to 50-mg dose. An appropriately powered future trial is necessary to determine a potential role of amitriptyline in decreasing postoperative pain.

PERSPECTIVE

Amitriptyline potently blocks the persistently open Na+ channels, which are known to be instrumental in various pain states. As this occurs at very low plasma concentrations, a single preoperative intravenous infusion of amitriptyline could provide long-lasting pain relief and decrease the incidence of chronic pain.

Perioperative considerations for patients with morbid obesity

The anesthetic management of the MO patient requires an important focus on a number of issues beginning with a careful preoperative evaluation and synthesizing pre-existing disease processes with the anesthetic management plan. The common misperception that all MO patients are "full stomach" has been challenged and may be a nonissue. New approaches to pre-oxygenation to lessen the likelihood of desaturation during apnea may be a valuable tool if difficulty is encountered in tracheal intubation. In addition, promising results have been demonstrated with the use of the ILMA for ventilation and for blindly establishing tracheal tube placement. Proper patient positioning is essential to aid in successful intubation when a laryngoscope is employed. Intraoperative anesthetic management can be guided with a processed electroencephalogram monitor to help improve emergence and to enhance wakefulness in the PACU. Careful consideration must be given to postoperative analgesic needs by minimizing the use of opioids and employing nonopioid analgesics including NSAIDs, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, and low doses of ketamine.

Preoperative Cotreatment With Dextromethorphan and Ketorolac Provides an Enhancement of Pain Relief After Laparoscopic-assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy

OBJECTIVES

Both N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been demonstrated to produce better postoperative pain relief. The concept of multimodal analgesia has also been used for clinical pain management. The aim of the present study was to examine the analgesic effect of preoperative cotreatment with dextromethorphan (DM) and ketorolac on postoperative pain management after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH).

METHODS

Eighty ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for LAVH were included and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups. Patients received intramuscular (IM) chorpheniramine 20 mg+ intravenous (IV) 2 mL of normal saline, IM DM 40 mg+IV 2 mL of normal saline, IM chorpheniramine 20 mg+IV 60 mg (2 mL) of ketorolac, and IM DM 40 mg+IV ketorolac 60 mg as the groups C, DM, Keto, and DM+Keto, respectively. All patients were given a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine for pain relief postoperatively. Analgesic effects were evaluated using Visual Analog Scale pain scores at rest and during coughing, time to first PCA request for pain relief, total morphine consumption, bed rest time, and the time to first passage of flatus for 48 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

Patients in DM and Keto groups had significantly better pain relief than patients in group C. Patients in DM+Keto group exhibited the best postoperative pain relief among groups in the following several categories: time to first trigger of PCA, total morphine consumption, the worst Visual Analog Scale, bed rest time, and the time to first passage of flatus, demonstrating an enhanced effect between DM and ketorolac. Neither synergistic nor antagonistic interaction was observed between DM and ketorolac.

DISCUSSION

Preoperative treatment with both DM and ketorolac diminish postoperative pain. Our results suggest that the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist-DM and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-ketorolac cotreatment provide an enhancement of analgesia for postoperative pain management in patients after LAVH surgery.

Comparison of the effects of thoracic epidural analgesia and i.v. infusion with lidocaine on cytokine response, postoperative pain and bowel function in patients undergoing colonic surgery

BACKGROUND

Both thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and i.v. lidocaine were able to decrease postoperative pain and duration of ileus. We compared TEA and i.v. lidocaine (IV) regarding their effects on cytokines, pain and bowel function after colonic surgery.

METHODS

Sixty patients were randomly allocated to one of the three groups. TEA group had lidocaine 2 mg kg(-1) followed by 3 mg kg(-1) h(-1) epidurally and an equal volume of i.v. normal saline. The IV group received the same amount of lidocaine i.v. and normal saline epidurally. The control group received normal saline via both routes. These regimens were started 30 min before surgery and were continued throughout. Blood cytokines were measured at scheduled times within 72 h.

RESULTS

Both TEA and IV groups had better pain relief. The total consumptions using patient-controlled epidural analgesia were 81.6 (6.5), 55.0 (5.3) and 45.6 (3.9) ml (P<0.01) and the times of flatus passage were 50.2 (4.9), 60.2 (5.8) and 71.7 (4.7) h (P<0.01) in the TEA, IV and control groups, respectively. The TEA group exhibited the best postoperative pain relief and the least cytokine surge. The IV group experienced better pain relief and less cytokine release than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The TEA lidocaine had better pain relief, lower opioid consumption, earlier return of bowel function and lesser production of cytokines than IV lidocaine during 72 h after colonic surgery; IV group was better than the control group.

A qualitative systematic review of peri-operative dextromethorphan in post-operative pain

BACKGROUND

The N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, dextromethorphan (DM), has received interest as an adjunctive agent in post-operative pain management. Clinical trials have been contradictory. This systematic review aims to evaluate the available literature examining the analgesic efficacy of DM in post-operative patients.

METHODS

Twenty-eight randomized, double-blind, clinical studies, with 40 comparisons, including a variety of dosing regimens comparing DM treatment with placebo, were included. Meta-analysis was intended but deemed to be inappropriate because of the substantial difference in methodology and reporting between trials. The outcome measures (pain scores at rest, time to first analgesic request and supplemental analgesic consumption) were evaluated qualitatively by significant difference (P<0.05) as reported in the original investigations.

RESULTS

DM did not reduce the post-operative pain score with a clinically significant magnitude. The time to first analgesic request was significantly prolonged in most comparisons with DM. Significant decreases in supplemental opioid consumption were observed in the majority of parenteral DM studies and in about one-half of the oral studies. The decreases were of questionable clinical importance in most comparisons, although a relationship between a decrease in opioid consumption and opioid-related side-effects was established in some studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on the studies available, DM has the potential to be a safe adjunctive agent to opioid analgesia in post-operative pain management, but the consistency of the potential opioid-sparing and pain-reducing effect must be questioned. Consequently, it is not possible to recommend dose regimens or routine clinical use of DM in post-operative pain. The route of administration may be important for the beneficial effect.