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.

Neostigmine-based reversal of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents to prevent postoperative residual paralysis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Neostigmine is widely used to antagonise residual paralysis. Over the last decades, the benchmark of acceptable neuromuscular recovery has increased progressively to a train-of-four (TOF) ratio of at least 0.9. Raising this benchmark may impact on the efficacy of neostigmine. OBJECTIVE(S): The systematic review evaluates the efficacy of neostigmine to antagonise neuromuscular block to attain a TOF ratio of at least 0.9. DESIGN: We performed a systematic search of the literature from January 1992 to December 2015. DATA SOURCES OR SETTING: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials database were searched for randomised controlled human studies. Search was performed without language restrictions, using the following free text terms: 'neostigmine', 'sugammadex', 'edrophonium' or 'pyridostigmine' AND 'neuromuscular block', 'reversal' or 'reverse'. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were accepted for inclusion if they used quantitative neuromuscular monitoring and neostigmine as the reversal agent. Selected trials were checked by two of the authors for data integrity. Trials relevant for inclusion had to report the number of patients included, the type of anaesthetic maintenance, the type of neuromuscular blocking agent used, the reversal agent and dose used, the depth of neuromuscular block when neostigmine was administered and the reversal time (time from injection of neostigmine until a TOF ratio ≥0.9 was attained). RESULTS: 19 trials were eligible for quantitative analysis. In patients with deep residual block [T1 (first twitch height) <10%] 70 µg kg neostigmine was used (five trials, 118 patients), and the mean reversal time was 17.1 min (95% confidence interval (CI) [12.4 to 21.8]). In patients with moderate residual block (T1 10% to <25%) the mean neostigmine dose was 56 µg kg (seven trials, 342 patients), and the mean reversal time was 11.3 min (95% CI [9.2 to 13.4]). In patients with a shallow residual block (T1 ≥ 25%) the mean neostigmine dose was 40 µg kg (13 trials, 535 patients), and the mean reversal time was 8.0 min (95% CI [6.8 to 9.2]). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this systematic review, we recommend that the administration of neostigmine be delayed until an advanced degree of prereversal recovery has occurred (i.e. a T1 >25% of baseline), or that a recovery time longer than 15 min be accepted.

[Emergency Care of Trauma Patients with the Bavarian "Rebel" Kit]. / Versorgung von Traumapatienten mit dem "REBEL"-Set.

BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing threat by terrorism and the resulting range of operations for the emergency medical service, the equipment as well as the rescue strategies are being adapted and expanded. An example is the "Recommended Action for Emergency Medical Services in Special Operations" (REBEL, Handlungsempfehlung für Rettungsdienst bei besonderen Einsatzlagen) of the highest Bavarian rescue service authority. In the following article, three cases are presented using new tools such as hemostyptics, thoracic patches and tourniquet from the REBEL kit in everyday operations. CASES: The first case deals with a seriously injured driver involved in a truck accident suffering from a scalping violation of the facial skeleton with consecutive critical bleeding (use of hemostyptics-coated dressings). The second case describes an accident with a reinforcing steel perforating a builder's chest. After removal of the perforating steel by first aiders, the two open thoracic wounds are supplied with thoracic closure patches. The third case deals with an amputation injury of the lower leg after a traffic accident (use of tourniquet). DISCUSSION: The most common causes of death besides bleeding that can be prevented in patients with severe injuries and multiple trauma are tension pneumothorax and airway obstruction. These diagnoses can be identified and treated properly using the ABCDE algorithm. In these cases, the new tools such as tourniquet, hemostyptics, chest decompression needles and thoracic closure patches can be used, which are increasingly held as an additional equipment in the ambulance vehicle. The application of these adjuvants requires a critical indication, competent knowledge and training of medical and non-medical emergency service personnel in theory and practice.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour.

BACKGROUND: Multiple analgesic strategies for pain relief during labour are available. Recently remifentanil, a short-acting opioid, has recently been used as an alternative analgesic due to its unique pharmacological properties. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effectiveness of remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for labour pain, along with any potential harms to the mother and the newborn. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 December 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), handsearched congress abstracts (November 2015), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials comparing remifentanil (PCA) with another opioid (intravenous (IV)/intramuscular (IM)), or with another opioid (PCA), or with epidural analgesia, or with remifentanil (continuous IV), or with remifentanil (PCA, different regimen), or with inhalational analgesia, or with placebo/no treatment in all women in labour including high-risk groups with planned vaginal delivery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and appraised study quality.We contacted study authors for additional information other than incomplete outcome data. We performed random-effects meta-analysis.To reduce the risk of random error in meta-analysis we performed trial sequential analysis. We included total zero event trials and used a constant continuity correction of 0.01 (ccc 0.01) for meta-analysis. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty RCTs with 3569 women were included. Of those, 10 trials (2983 participants) compared remifentanil (PCA) to an epidural, four trials (216 participants) to another opioid (IV/IM), three trials (215 participants) to another opioid (PCA), two trials (135 participants) to remifentanil (continuous IV), and one trial (20 participants) to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen). No trials were identified for the remaining comparisons.Methodological quality of studies was moderate to poor. We assessed risk of bias as high for blinding issues and incomplete outcome data in 65% and 45% of the included studies, respectively.There is evidence of effect that women in the remifentanil (PCA) group were more satisfied with pain relief than women in the other opioids (IV/IM) group (standardised mean difference (SMD) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.49, four trials, very low-quality evidence), and that women were less satisfied compared to women in the epidural group (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.04, seven trials, very low-quality evidence).There is evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) provided stronger pain relief at one hour than other opioids administered IV/IM (SMD -1.58, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.48, three trials, very low-quality evidence) or via PCA (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.00, three trials, very low-quality evidence). Pain intensity was higher in the remifentanil (PCA) group compared to the epidural group (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84, six trials, low-quality evidence).Data were limited on safety aspects for both the women and the newborns. Only one study analysed maternal apnoea in a comparison of remifentanil (PCA) versus epidural and reported that half of the women in the remifentanil and none in the epidural group had an apnoea (very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for maternal respiratory depression when compared to epidural analgesia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62, ccc 0.01, three trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to remifentanil (continuous IV) (all study arms included zero events, two trials, low-quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (IM) three out of 18 women in the remifentanil and none out of 18 in the control group had a respiratory depression (very low-quality evidence).There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for newborns with Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes compared to epidural analgesia (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.57, ccc 0.01, five trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to another opioid (IV) and compared to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen) both with zero events in all study arms (one trial, very-low quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (PCA) none out of nine newborns in the remifentanil and three out of eight in the opioid (PCA) group had Apgar scores less than seven (very-low quality evidence).There is evidence that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with a lower risk for the requirement of additional analgesia when compared to other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.81, three trials, moderate-quality evidence) and that it was associated with a higher risk compared to epidural analgesia (RR 9.27, 95% CI 3.73 to 23.03, ccc 0.01, six trials, moderate-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) reduced the requirement for additional analgesia compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.28, three trials, low-quality evidence).There is evidence that there was no difference in the risk for caesarean delivery between remifentanil (PCA) and other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.32, ccc 0.01, four trials, low-quality evidence) and epidural analgesia (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22, ccc 0.01, nine trials, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. Pooled meta-analysis revealed an increased risk for caesarean section under remifentanil (PCA) compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 2.78, 95% CI 0.99 to 7.82, two trials, very low-quality evidence). However, a wide range of clinically relevant and non-relevant treatment effects is compatible with this result. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current systematic review, there is mostly low-quality evidence to inform practice and future research may significantly alter the current situation. The quality of evidence is mainly limited by poor quality of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision. More research is needed on maternal and neonatal safety outcomes (maternal apnoea and respiratory depression, Apgar score) and on the optimal mode and regimen of remifentanil administration to provide highest efficacy with reasonable adverse effects for mothers and their newborns.

[Update in Obstetric Anesthesia - Tried and Trusted Methods, Controversies and New Perspectives]. / Geburtshilfliche Anästhesie: Altbewährtes, Kontroversen und neue Perspektiven ­ Teil 2.

Since 1975, a plethora of lectures within the context of annual meetings relevant for the clinical care has been summarized in "what's new in obstetric anesthesia" by the society for Obstetric anesthesia and Perinatology which can be recommended to everyone interested in anaesthesiology in the delivery room. After the death of Gerard W. Ostheimer, Professor of Anaesthesiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, it became renamed the Gerard W. Ostheimer "what's new in obstetric anesthesia" lecture to honor his contributions to regional anesthesia and obstetric anaesthesia. Each year the event held by selected professional representatives and their imprint in leading anesthesia journals give insight into a critical appraisal of recent literature and the possible consequences for - but not only - the anaesthetic delivery room practice.A similar event has been established in Germany for more than 16 years (first event on April 1, 2000, most recently held on February 27, 2016, in Munich): the obstetrical anesthesia symposium of the academic working group "regional anesthesia and obstetrical anesthesia" [1], [2]."Evergreens" or "hot topics" with regard to anaesthesiological delivery room practice are presented and discussed regularly. The lectures often reveal the subtle change of the issues being debated much earlier than traditional textbook chapters do. This manuscript summarizes important findings from the last symposium held in 2016. Part I focuses on relevant causes for maternal morbidity and mortality as well as preventive measures, pregnancy in obese patients and sepsis in obstetric anaesthesia. Part II addresses established standards and new perspectives in the direct obstetric setting regarding epidural analgesia, post-dural puncture headache, anaesthesia and analgesia during and after caesarean section, haemodynamic monitoring during cesarean section and postpartum haemorrhage.

[Update in Obstetric Anesthesia: Tried and Trusted Methods, Controversies and New Perspectives - Part 1]. / Geburtshilfliche Anästhesie: Altbewährtes, Kontroversen und neue Perspektiven ­ Teil 1.

Since 1975, a plethora of lectures within the context of annual meetings relevant for the clinical care has been summarized in "what's new in obstetric anesthesia" by the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology which can be recommended to everyone interested in anaesthesiology in the delivery room. After the death of Gerard W. Ostheimer, Professor of Anaesthesiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, it became renamed the Gerard W. Ostheimer "what's new in obstetric anesthesia" lecture to honor his contributions to regional anesthesia and obstetric anaesthesia. Each year the event held by selected professional representatives and their imprint in leading anesthesia journals give insight into a critical appraisal of recent literature and the possible consequences for - but not only - the anaesthetic delivery room practice.A similar event has been established in Germany for more than 16 years: the obstetrical anesthesia symposium of the academic working group "regional anesthesia and obstetrical anesthesia" 1, 2."Evergreens" or "hot topics" with regard to anaesthesiological delivery room practice are presented and discussed regularly. The lectures often reveal the subtle change of the issues being debated much earlier than traditional textbook chapters do. This manuscript summarizes important findings from the last symposium held in 2016. Part I focuses on relevant causes for maternal morbidity and mortality as well as preventive measures, pregnancy in obese patients and sepsis in obstetric anaesthesia. Part II addresses established standards and new perspectives in the direct obstetric setting regarding epidural analgesia, post-dural puncture headache, anaesthesia and analgesia during and after caesarean section, haemodynamic monitoring during cesarean section and postpartum haemorrhage.

Incidence and severity of chronic pain after caesarean section: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of caesarean section has increased dramatically in recent decades. Despite this, robust data regarding the consequences of caesarean section in terms of developing chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) are still lacking. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review analysed the incidence and severity of CPSP in women 3 to less than 6, 6 to less than 12, and at least 12 months after caesarean section. DESIGN: Systematic review of prospective and retrospective observational studies and randomised controlled trials with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE to May 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all studies investigating the incidence and/or severity of CPSP at least 3 months after caesarean section. The primary outcome was chronic postsurgical wound pain (CPSP 'wound'). Secondary outcomes were persistent pain in the back area, pelvic region or reported as residual pain, and severity of 'birth-related' chronic pain. RESULTS: Meta-analysis using the random-effects model based on 15 studies (n = 4475) reporting CPSP 'wound' at 3 to less than 6 months after caesarean section revealed an incidence of 15.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 9.9 to 20.9%]. For 6 to less than 12 and at least 12 months after caesarean section, the incidence of CPSP 'wound' was estimated at 11.5% (95% CI: 8.1 to 15.0%, n = 3345) and 11.2% (95% CI: 7.4 to 15.0%, n = 3451), respectively. Meta-regression analysis using the publication year as predictor revealed stable CPSP 'wound' incidences at each postoperative time slot from 2002 to the present. Of those patients who reported chronic pain, 9.6% (95% CI: 0.0 to 21.0%) had severe pain, 23.5% (95% CI: 10.0 to 37.0%) had moderate pain and 49.2% (95% CI: 18.9 to 79.4%) had mild pain at 6 months. LIMITATIONS: Major limitations are high statistical heterogeneity of the meta-analyses and inconsistencies in reporting severity of chronic 'birth-related' pain. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis finds a clinically relevant incidence of CPSP 'wound' after caesarean section ranging from 15% at 3 months to 11% at 12 months or longer that has been largely stable in recent years.

Preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anesthesia for cesarean section: challenges and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) or postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affecting women undergoing regional anesthesia for cesarean section is an important clinical problem since these techniques are used widely. There are burdens of literature about IONV/PONV and several in parturient and cesarean. However, it needs more attention. The underlying mechanisms of IONV and PONV in the obstetrical setting mainly include hypotension due to sympathicolysis during neuraxial anesthesia, bradycardia owing to an increased vagal tone, the visceral stimulation via the surgical procedure and intravenously administered opioids. METHODS: Given the high and even increasing rate of cesarean sections and the sparse information on the etiology, incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting and the impact of prophylactic measures on the incidence of PONV/IONV, this article aims to review the available information and provide pragmatic suggestions on how to prevent nausea and vomiting in this patient cohort. Current literature and guidelines were identified by electronic database searching (MEDLINE via PubMed and Cochrane database of systematic reviews) up to present, searching through reference lists of included literature and personal contact with experts. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Taking into account the current guidelines and literature as well as everyday clinical experience, the first step for decreasing the incidence of IONV and PONV is a comprehensive management of circulatory parameters. This management includes liberal perioperative fluid administration and the application of vasopressors as the circumstances require. By using low-dose local anesthetics, an additional application of intrathecal or spinal opioids or hyperbaric solutions for a sufficient controllability of neuraxial distribution, maternal hypotension might be reduced. Performing a combined spinal-epidural anesthesia or epidural anesthesia may be considered as an alternative to spinal anesthesia. Antiemetic drugs may be administered restrainedly due to off-label use in pregnant women for IONV or PONV prophylaxis and may be reserved for treatment.