Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intravenous lignocaine in colorectal surgery: a systematic review.
MacFater, Wiremu S; Rahiri, Jamie-Lee; Lauti, Melanie; Su'a, Bruce; Hill, Andrew G.
Afiliação
  • MacFater WS; Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Rahiri JL; Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Lauti M; Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Su'a B; Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Hill AG; Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
ANZ J Surg ; 87(11): 879-885, 2017 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28677829
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Colorectal surgery leads to morbidity during recovery including pain and fatigue. Intravenous (IV) lignocaine (IVL) has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects that may improve post-operative pain and recovery. The aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of IVL to other perioperative analgesia regimens for reducing pain and opioid consumption following colorectal surgery.

METHODS:

Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, a literature search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials that compared IVL with IV placebo or epidural anaesthesia in open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were opioid requirements and pain scores assessed by visual analogue score. Data were entered into pre-designed electronic spreadsheets.

RESULTS:

The literature search identified 2707 studies. A total of nine randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Five studies investigated IVL compared with IV placebo and four studies investigated IVL compared with epidural anaesthesia. Two out of the five studies comparing IVL and placebo showed statistically significant reductions in opioid consumption with IVL. There was a variable degree of improvement in pain scores when IVL was compared with epidural. Two studies showed a significant difference, with lower opioid consumption and pain scores in the epidural group. Laparoscopic and open procedures could not be compared between the IVL and placebo group.

CONCLUSION:

IVL has shown limited benefit towards reducing early pain and morphine consumption when compared with placebo in colorectal surgery. However, IVL did not show any significant reduction in pain or opioid consumption when compared with epidural. Further research investigating IVL combined with intraperitoneal local anaesthetic is warranted.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Dor Pós-Operatória / Anestésicos Locais / Lidocaína Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Female / Humans / Pregnancy Idioma: En Revista: ANZ J Surg Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Dor Pós-Operatória / Anestésicos Locais / Lidocaína Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Female / Humans / Pregnancy Idioma: En Revista: ANZ J Surg Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article