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.

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.

[Epidural analgesia in combination with general anesthesia]. / Epiduralanästhesie - Epiduralanästhesie in Kombination mit Allgemeinanästhesie.

Epidural anaesthesia is a widely used and accepted technique for perioperative analgesia in different kinds of surgery. Apart from analgetic effect and due to wide positve effects on patients outcome epidural analgesia is often used with general anaesthesia. It represents a reliable and reversible neural deafferentation technique that effectively contributes to a reduction of the surgical stress response with subsequent positive effects on cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, and immune function. Animal studies suggest that the use of epidural anaesthesia may be beneficial for cancer surgery because of less tumour recurrence. Further, a benefit is expected in patient's mortality. This article summarizes and critically discusses the current knowledge on the effects of epidural anaesthesia on pain management, cardiopulmonary as well as gastrointestinal functions and patient's outcome.

Efficacy and safety of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for acute postoperative pain in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Aim of the current meta-analysis was to assess the effects of intraoperative dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and adverse events in comparison with placebo or opioids in children undergoing surgery. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement and the Cochrane collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous outcomes of efficacy and adverse events, the Revman(®) (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) statistical software was used to calculate relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 11 randomized controlled trials - 434 children received dexmedetomidine, 440 received control. In comparison with placebo, children receiving dexmedetomidine showed a reduced RR for postoperative opioids (0.4; 95% CI: 0.26-0.62; P < 0.00001) and postoperative pain (0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.81; P = 0.004). Similar results were obtained for the comparison with intraoperative opioids: reduced RR for postoperative pain (0.49; 95% CI: 0.25-0.94; P = 0.03) and the need for postoperative opioids (0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-1.09; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed a lower risk for postoperative pain and the need for postoperative opioids following intraoperative dexmedetomidine in comparison with placebo or opioids in children undergoing surgery; however, the influence of dexmedetomidine on postoperative opioid consumption is less clear. Although there were only a limited number of adverse events, further studies focusing on procedure specific dexmedetomidine dosing and adverse events are urgently needed.

Efficacy and safety of clonidine as additive for caudal regional anesthesia: a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Clonidine is still the most popular additive for caudal regional anesthesia. Aim of the present quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of the combined use of clonidine and local anesthetics in comparison with caudal local anesthetics alone. METHODS: The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal and pooled analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. The systematic search included the Central register of controlled trials of the Cochrane Library (to present), MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present) and CINAHL (1981 to present). Relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Revman(®) statistical software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty randomized controlled trials (published between 1994 and 2010) including 993 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a longer duration of postoperative analgesia in children receiving clonidine in addition to local anesthetic (MD: 3.98 h; 95% CI: 2.84-5.13; P < 0.00001). Furthermore, there was a lower number of patients requiring rescue analgesics in the clonidine group (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.57-0.90; P = 0.003). The incidence of complications (e.g., respiratory depression) remained very low and was not different to caudal local anesthetics alone. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable evidence that caudally administered clonidine in addition to local anesthetics provides extended duration of analgesia with a decreased incidence for analgesic rescue requirement and little adverse effects compared to caudal local anesthetics alone.

Sex-related differences of patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative pain.

Gender differences in pain modulation are evident but data are rare with regard to perioperative regional analgesia. The aim of the present analysis was to assess gender-related differences in pain ratings, analgesic consumption, and adverse events in a large group of patients treated with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) after major surgery. Data from 14,988 adult patients (6506 women; 8482 men) receiving a PCEA between January 1998 and December 2009 were examined. Demographic data and postoperative measurements assessed by the Acute Pain Service, including total PCEA consumption, pain scores, and complications, were analyzed by using PASW Statistics (18.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Beyond standard descriptive analyses, gender-related differences were investigated using a stepwise multivariate analysis of variances. Postoperative pain scores during rest and movement were almost equal between men and women. However, women showed lower total PCEA consumption consistently throughout the 5-day observation period (relative reduction by 1.7%-10.2% compared to men; P=0.00). Total PCEA consumption did not interact with surgical site (abdomen, thorax, extremity) (P=0.379) or age (<50, 50-75, >75 years; P=0.330), but was influenced by body mass index (P=0.017) and vomiting (P=0.011). Furthermore, motor blockade was greater in females compared to males (P=0.000). In patients treated with PCEA, gender differences in numeric rating scale scores exist but are not clinically relevant. However, reduced total PCEA consumption in women might be a consequence of an increased incidence of motor blockade and vomiting; the latter point towards an opioid-free PCEA solution in female patients at high risk for vomiting.