Comparison of Fentanyl, Ketamine, and Lidocaine Combined with Propofol Anesthesia in Patients with Crohn Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the predominant invasive procedure for Crohn disease (CD) patients. Opioids and propofol carry risks of respiratory and cardiovascular complications. This study aimed to evaluate whether substituting fentanyl with ketamine or lidocaine could diminish propofol usage and minimize adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total, 146 patients with CD scheduled for elective colonoscopy were assigned to anesthesia with fentanyl (n=47), ketamine (n=47), or lidocaine (n=55). Propofol was administered to achieve sufficient anesthesia. Measured outcomes in each group included propofol consumption, hypotension and desaturation incidents, adverse event types, consciousness recovery time, abdominal pain intensity, Aldrete scale, and Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System (PADSS). RESULTS Patients administered fentanyl needed significantly more propofol (P=0.017) than those on ketamine, with lidocaine showing no notable difference (P=0.28). Desaturation was significantly less common in the ketamine and lidocaine groups than fentanyl group (P<0.001). The ketamine group experienced milder reductions in mean arterial (P=0.018) and systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Recovery metrics (Aldrete and PADSS scores) were lower for fentanyl (P<0.001), although satisfaction and pain levels were consistent across all groups (P=0.797). Dizziness occurred less frequently with lidocaine than fentanyl (17.2%, P=0.018) and ketamine (15.1%, P=0.019), while metallic taste incidents were more prevalent in the lidocaine group (13.5%, P=0.04) than fentanyl group. CONCLUSIONS Using ketamine or lidocaine instead of fentanyl in anesthesia for colonoscopy in patients with CD significantly lowers propofol use, reduces desaturation events, maintains blood pressure more effectively, without increasing hypotension risk, and accelerates recovery, without negatively impacting adverse events or patient satisfaction.

Effect of lidocaine on intraoperative blood pressure variability in patients undergoing major vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic fluctuations of arterial blood pressure known as blood pressure variability (BPV) may have short and long-term undesirable consequences. During surgical procedures blood pressure is usually measured in equal intervals allowing to assess its intraoperative variability, which significance for peri and post-operative period is still under debate. Lidocaine has positive cardiovascular effects, which may go beyond its antiarrhythmic activity. The aim of the study was to verify whether the use of intravenous lidocaine may affect intraoperative BPV in patients undergoing major vascular procedures. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the data collected during the previous randomized clinical trial by Gajniak et al. In the original study patients undergoing elective abdominal aorta and/or iliac arteries open surgery were randomized into two groups to receive intravenous infusion of 1% lidocaine or placebo at the same infusion rate based on ideal body weight, in concomitance with general anesthesia. We analyzed systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean arterial blood (MAP) pressure recorded in 5-minute intervals (from the first measurement before induction of general anaesthesia until the last after emergence from anaesthesia). Blood pressure variability was then calculated for SBP and MAP, and expressed as: standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), average real variability (ARV) and coefficient of hemodynamic stability (C10%), and compared between both groups. RESULTS: All calculated indexes were comparable between groups. In the lidocaine and placebo groups systolic blood pressure SD, CV, AVR and C10% were 20.17 vs. 19.28, 16.40 vs. 15.64, 14.74 vs. 14.08 and 0.45 vs. 0.45 respectively. No differences were observed regarding type of surgery, operating and anaesthetic time, administration of vasoactive agents and intravenous fluids, including blood products. CONCLUSION: In high-risk vascular surgery performed under general anesthesia, lidocaine infusion had no effect on arterial blood pressure variability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04691726 post-hoc analysis; date of registration 31/12/2020.

Balanced opioid-free anesthesia with lidocaine and esketamine versus balanced anesthesia with sufentanil for gynecological endoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

In this randomized controlled trial, 74 patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I/II) were enrolled and randomly divided into two study groups: (i) Group C (control), received sufentanil (0.3 µg/kg) and saline, followed by sufentanil (0.1 µg/kg∙h) and saline; and (ii) Group F (OFA), received esketamine (0.15 mg/kg) and lidocaine (2 mg/kg), followed by esketamine (0.1 mg/kg∙h) and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg∙h). The primary outcome was the 48-h time-weighted average (TWA) of postoperative pain scores. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, adverse effects, and postoperative sedation score, pain scores at different time points, analgesic consumption at 48 h, and gastrointestinal functional recovery. The 48-h TWAs of pain scores were 1.32 (0.78) (95% CI 1.06-1.58) and 1.09 (0.70) (95% CI 0.87-1.33) for Groups F and C, respectively. The estimated difference between Groups F and C was - 0.23 (95% CI - 0.58 - 0.12; P = 0.195). No differences were found in any of the secondary outcomes and no severe adverse effects were observed in either group. Balanced OFA with lidocaine and esketamine achieved similar effects to balanced anesthesia with sufentanil in patients undergoing elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery, without severe adverse effects.Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2300067951, www.chictr.org.cn 01 February, 2023.

Effects of intravenous single-bolus lidocaine infusion versus intravenous single-bolus magnesium sulfate infusion on postoperative pain, emotional status, and quality of life in patients undergoing spine fusion surgery: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficiency of intravenous adjuvants in decreasing opioid intake and pain scores after spine fusion surgery. METHODS: This study included 120 patients aged 18-60 listed for spine fusion surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to four groups: Group (Lidocaine): received IV lidocaine 4 mg/kg in 50 mL volume over 30 min. Group (Magnesium): received IV magnesium sulfate 30mg/kg in 50 mL volume over 30 min. Group (combined Lidocaine and Magnesium): received IV lidocaine 4 mg/kg in 50 mL volume over 30 min.+IV magnesium sulfate 30mg/kg in 50 mL volume over 30 min. Group (Control): received IV saline 50 mL. The time to the first request analgesia, the postoperative pain score, total analgesic use, patient satisfaction, anxiety, depression, mental state, quality of life, and side effects were measured. RESULTS: The combined group had more extended time for the first analgesic request and fewer rescue analgesia doses than the other groups. NRS scores at rest or movement were statistically significantly lower in the lidocaine group and the combined group compared to the control group (P1, P3<0.05) at almost all times. This combination reduces anxiety and depression and improves overall health up to three months after a single infusion. The combined group had higher patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: A synergistic effect of a combination of lidocaine and magnesium sulfate on perioperative pain was found. It reduces analgesic consumption, depression, and anxiety and improves overall health up to three months after a single infusion dose.

Lidocaine Infusion: An Analgesic Option for Checkpoint Inhibitor Arthritis: A Case Report.

This report describes the use of subcutaneous lidocaine infusion to manage complex pain associated with checkpoint inhibitor inflammatory arthritis. In addition, the safe administration of lidocaine in the home setting is described. A 49-year-old man with metastatic melanoma to lung, right axilla and posterior chest wall on regular pembrolizumab developed checkpoint inhibitor inflammatory arthritis. Pain associated with this was unresponsive to simple analgesia, escalating opioids and adjuvant analgesics. Lidocaine infusion was used on separate occasions (inpatient unit and home setting) to gain rapid and sustained control of inflammatory pain. Inflammatory pain responded well to 2 mg/kg/h lidocaine infusion over 4 days with sustained response between infusions of up to 6 wk. Resulting in improved mobility, functional status, and overall quality of life. Lidocaine infusion should be considered as an option for analgesic management of checkpoint inhibitor inflammatory arthritis in patients for whom usual treatment is ineffective, and as an opioid-sparing intervention.

Prevention of persistent pain with lidocaine infusions in breast cancer surgery (PLAN): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain is a common yet debilitating complication after breast cancer surgery. Given the pervasive effects of this pain disorder on the patient and healthcare system, post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is becoming a larger population health problem, especially as the prognosis and survivorship of breast cancer increases. Interventions that prevent persistent pain after breast surgery are needed to improve the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. An intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion has emerged as a potential intervention to decrease the incidence of PMPS. We aim to determine the definitive effects of this intervention in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. METHODS: PLAN will be a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 1,602 patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Adult patients scheduled for a lumpectomy or mastectomy will be randomized to receive an intravenous 2% lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg with induction of anesthesia, followed by a 2.0 mg/kg/h infusion until the end of surgery, or placebo solution (normal saline) at the same volume. The primary outcome will be the incidence of persistent pain at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of pain and opioid consumption at 1 h, 1-3 days, and 12 months after surgery, as well as emotional, physical, and functional parameters, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on an intervention that could potentially prevent persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. If this trial is successful, lidocaine infusion would be integrated as standard of care in breast cancer management. This inexpensive, widely available, and easily administered intervention has the potential to reduce pain and suffering in an already afflicted patient population, decrease the substantial costs of chronic pain management, potentially decrease opioid use, and improve the quality of life in patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04874038, Dr. James Khan. Date of registration: May 5, 2021).

Lidocaine effects on neutrophil extracellular trapping and angiogenesis biomarkers in postoperative breast cancer patients with different anesthesia methods: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia techniques and drug selection may influence tumor recurrence and metastasis. Neutrophil extracellular trapping (NETosis), an immunological process, has been linked to an increased susceptibility to metastasis in individuals with tumors. Furthermore, recurrence may be associated with vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), a mediator of angiogenesis. This study investigates the impact of lidocaine (combined with sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia ) during breast cancer surgery inhibits the expression of biomarkers associated with metastasis and recurrence (specifically H3Cit, NE, MPO, MMP-9 and VEGF-A). METHODS: We randomly assigned 120 women undergoing primary or invasive breast tumor resection to receive one of four anesthetics: sevoflurane (S), sevoflurane plus i.v. lidocaine (SL), propofol (P), and propofol plus i.v. lidocaine (PL). Blood samples were collected before induction and 3 h after the operation. Biomarkers associated with NETosis (citrullinated histone H3 [H3Cit], myeloperoxidase [MPO], and neutrophil elastase [NE]) and angiogenesis were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. RESULTS: Patient and breast tumor characteristics, along with perioperative management, did not differ between study groups. In intra-group comparisons, S and P groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in post-operative MPO (S group: 10.39[6.89-17.22] vs. 14.31[8.55-20.87] ng ml-1, P = 0.032; P group: 9.45[6.73-17.37] vs. 14.34[9.87-19.75] ng ml-1, P = 0.035)and NE(S group: 182.70[85.66-285.85] vs. 226.20[91.85-391.65] ng ml-1, P = 0.045; P group: 154.22[97.31-325.30] vs. 308.66[132.36-483.57] ng ml-1, P = 0.037) concentrations compared to pre-operative measurements, whereas SL and PL groups did not display a similar increase. H3Cit, MMP-9, and VEGF-A concentrations were not significantly influenced by the anesthesia techniques and drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the specific technique employed for general anesthesia, there was no increase in the postoperative serum concentrations of MPO and NE after perioperative lidocaine infusion compared to preoperative serum concentrations. This supports the hypothesis that intravenous lidocaine during cancer surgery aimed at achieving a cure may potentially decrease the likelihood of recurrence. Further interpretation and discussion of clinical implications are warranted, emphasizing the significance of these findings in the context of cancer surgery and recurrence prevention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300068563.

Nerve Block Guided by Anatomic Landmarks Only Reduces Pain in Botulinum Toxin Type A Treatment for Glabellar and Forehead Wrinkles.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A is widely used to treat glabellar and forehead wrinkles, but the pain caused by multiple injections often deters patients from receiving long-term treatment. Despite several methods used to alleviate this pain, consistency and effectiveness remain a challenge. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nerve block guided by anatomic landmarks only in reducing pain associated with botulinum toxin type A injections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2018 and 2022, the study enrolled 90 patients divided into 3 groups: the nerve block group (n = 30), the lidocaine cream group (n = 30), and the control group (n = 30). In the nerve block group, a landmarks-based technique was used to perform the nerve block. The study collected general information and comorbidities, and recorded pain at each point and time spent on preparation and treatment for each patient's forehead and glabellar area on each side. Patient-reported outcomes and complications were followed up at 2, 4, and 12 weeks after the injections. RESULTS: The nerve block group had significantly lower total pain scores in all regions compared to the lidocaine cream and control groups (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes between the groups at any follow-up point. Additionally, the complication rates related to injection were low and comparable among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nerve block guided by anatomic landmarks only is a safe, effective, and consistent approach to reduce pain during botulinum toxin type A treatment for glabellar and forehead lines. This technique may offer advantages over other methods used to alleviate the pain associated with these injections.

Efficacy of Lidocaine Spray for Pain Reduction during Colposcopy-Directed Cervical Biopsies: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine spray in reducing the pain during colposcopy-directed cervical biopsy (CDB). Methods: From December 2017 to February 2019, 312 women undergoing CDBs were enrolled. The participants were randomized to three groups: group 1 (lidocaine spray), in which lidocaine spray was applied thoroughly to the cervix; group 2 (placebo), in which normal saline was applied thoroughly to the cervix; and group 3 (control), in which no anesthetic agent was applied to the cervix. Each woman completed a 10 cm visual analog scale to classify the subjective pain experience at three time points: baseline, immediately after biopsy, and 10 min after the procedure. The primary outcome of this study was the biopsy pain score. Results: The 312 enrolled women were randomly assigned to the three groups, amounting to 104 women per group. The clinical and pathological characteristics of the participants in all groups were comparable. The baseline, the biopsy, and the post-procedure pain scores were comparable among the three groups. There was a significant increase in the pain score from baseline to biopsy and from baseline to post-procedure in each group. The pain-score changes from baseline to biopsy in the lidocaine spray group significantly decreased when compared with the normal saline group (<0.001), and tended to decrease, though not significantly (p = 0.06), when compared with the control group. No complication with the intervention was observed. Conclusions: The application of lidocaine spray to the cervix has the benefit of reducing the pain associated with CDBs by a small amount. However, the intervention is safe and may be considered in nulliparous and/or overly anxious women undergoing the procedure.

Influence of Pre- and Intraoperative Local Anaesthetic in Strabismus Surgery under General Anaesthesia in Adults.

BACKGROUND: As studies have shown a reduction in the occurrence of the oculocardiac reflex with the addition of local anaesthesia, we changed our care regime accordingly a few years ago. To promote and establish better patient care, we retrospectively analysed the files of our patients who underwent strabismus surgery from 2013 to 2021 in order to compare strabismus surgery under general anaesthesia with and without local anaesthetics in a routine clinical setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 238 adult patients who had undergone strabismus surgery could be extracted from the files: G1: n = 102, only general anaesthesia; G2: n = 136, preoperative application of tetracaine eye drops and intraoperative subtenon lidocaine/levobupivacaine in addition to general anaesthesia. We compared the two groups in regard to the frequency of oculocardiac reflex, the amount of atropine needed to treat, as well as the amount of antiemetic and analgesic medication given, and time spent in the recovery room. RESULTS: Mean age of G1 was 50 years and 52 years in G2. There was no significant difference between the kind of surgeries (recessions/resections), the number of patients who had undergone a reoperation, or the duration of the operations. Adding local anaesthetics resulted in significantly less occurrence of oculocardiac reflex (p = 0.009), a reduction in the need for atropine, analgesic, or antiemetic medication, as well as reduced time in the recovery room. CONCLUSION: As this increases patient safety and comfort and is cost-effective (less time in the recovery room), we recommend adding perioperative local anaesthesia to strabismus surgery performed under general anaesthesia.

A comparative analysis of opioid-free and opioid-sparing anaesthesia techniques for laparoscopic ovariectomy in healthy dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative analgesic effects of an opioid-free (OFA) and an opioid-sparing (OSA) anaesthetic protocol in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial. ANIMALS: A group of 28 client-owned dogs. METHODS: Dogs were allocated to one of two groups. The OFA group was administered intramuscular (IM) dexmedetomidine 5 µg kg-1 and ketamine 1 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative constant rate infusions (CRIs) of dexmedetomidine (3 µg kg-1 hour-1) and lidocaine (1 mg kg-1 loading dose, 2 mg kg-1 hour-1). The OSA group was administered IM dexmedetomidine 5 µg kg-1, ketamine 1 mg kg-1 and methadone 0.2 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative saline CRIs. In both groups, anaesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) propofol 2 mg kg-1 and diazepam 0.2 mg kg-1 and maintained with isoflurane. Rescue dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg kg-1) was administered IV if there was a 20% increase in cardiovascular variables compared with pre-stimulation values. Ketorolac (0.5 mg kg-1) was administered IV when the surgery ended. Postoperative analgesia was evaluated using the Short Form-Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale and methadone (0.2 mg kg-1) was administered IM if the pain score was ≥ 6/24. Statistical analysis included mixed analysis of variance, Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the intraoperative monitored variables between groups. The OFA group showed a significantly lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement (p = 0.016) and lower postoperative pain scores at 3 (p =0.001) and 6 (p < 0.001) hours. No dogs were administered rescue methadone postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although both groups achieved acceptable postoperative pain scores with no need for further intervention, the analgesic efficacy of the OFA protocol was significantly superior to that of the OSA protocol presented and was associated with a lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement and early postoperative pain scores.

Comparison of labetalol and lidocaine in induction of controlled hypotension in tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of labetalol and lidocaine in tympanoplasty surgery, specifically evaluating their impact on hemodynamic changes and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 64 patients scheduled for tympanoplasty. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 0.5-2 mg/min labetalol or 1.5 mg/kg/h lidocaine 1% to achieve controlled hypotension during surgery. The efficacy of the drugs was assessed by comparing the Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), surgeon's satisfaction, time to target MAP, bleeding volume, postoperative pain scores, the need for analgesic medication in recovery, sedation, and other additional parameters. RESULTS: The hemodynamic parameters showed a similar trend over time in both the labetalol and lidocaine groups. The median bleeding volume in the labetalol group (10 cc) was lower than that in the lidocaine group (30 cc), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.11). Similarly, surgeon's satisfaction level, pain intensity, and sedation level in the recovery room did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). The duration of surgery, recovery stay, and extubation time also did not significantly differ between the groups. Both medications took approximately the same time (20 min) to reach the target MAP and exhibited comparable hemodynamic responses (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both labetalol and lidocaine effectively achieved controlled hypotension during tympanoplasty surgery, thereby improving surgical conditions. The choice of medication should be based on individual patient characteristics and the anesthesiologist's judgment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Analgesia efficacy of lidocaine transfused by a novel disposable injectable cervical dilator during intrauterine device removal procedure: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The majority of intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted in China are tailless, requiring intrauterine manipulations for removal and causing pain. This study aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of lidocaine injection into a novel disposable injectable cervical dilator for IUD removal procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted with women aged 18-65 years old requesting outpatient IUD removal. The study randomly assigned participants to either lidocaine (injecting 5 ml of 2% lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilator) or placebo (injecting 5 ml of normal saline into the device) group. All participants received a standardized paracervical block. The primary outcome was pain reported during IUD removal on a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Intention-to-treat were conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of injecting lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilators. RESULTS: We enrolled seventy-four eligible participants (37 in lidocaine group and 37 in placebo group). The results showed that the median intraoperative VAS score in the lidocaine group was lower than the placebo group (30.0 mm [IQR 20.0-46.0, n = 37] vs 46.0 mm [IQR 30.0-55.0, n = 37], p = 0.01. In subgroup analyses, among participants with IUD removal and without uterine manipulation and additional procedures, there was no statistically significant disparity observed in intraoperative VAS scores between the lidocaine and placebo group (15.0 mm [IQR 10.0-27.5, n = 8] vs 20.0 mm [IQR 20.0-40.0, n = 6]), p = 0.28). Among participants with an IUD removal necessitating intrauterine manipulations and without additional procedures, showing lower intraoperative VAS scores in lidocaine group (25.0 mm [IQR 15.0-40.5, n = 17]) compared to placebo group (46.0 mm [IQR 38.5-50.0, n = 23]), p < 0.01. Among participants with additional procedures in addition to IUD removal, there was no statistically significant disparity observed in intraoperative VAS scores between the lidocaine and placebo group (41.0 mm [IQR 32.5-57.5, n = 12] vs 45.0 mm [IQR 22.5-69.0, n = 8]), p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Injecting lidocaine into the novel disposable injectable cervical dilator for cervix dilation can significantly reduce pain during an IUD removal, particularly in patients necessitating intrauterine manipulations during IUD removal. IMPLICATIONS: When we have to perform intrauterine manipulations to remove an IUD, surgical pain and narrow cervical canal undoubtedly affect the implementation of the procedure. Injecting lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilator can achieve local anesthesia while dilating the cervix, and might reduce the choice of general anesthesia for IUD removal.

Assessing the Efficacy of Buffered Versus Nonbuffered Lidocaine in Dental Extractions: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Injections using buffered lidocaine may decrease discomfort, have a quicker onset, and be a more efficacious local anesthetic. Previous studies have been inconclusive in the oral context. PURPOSE: To address if bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine can decrease pain from the use of local anesthesia, has a quicker onset time, and is more efficacious. STUDY DESIGN: The design was a single-center double-blinded randomized control trial, set in an outpatient oral and maxillofacial clinic housed in the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Inclusion criteria for the study were patients requiring a single tooth extraction due either to caries or periodontal disease. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable was the local anesthetic used either nonbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (control) or bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (study) was randomly assigned. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: Primary outcome variables were injection pain score, and postoperative pain, time to anesthetic onset, and the number of rounds of injections required to achieve adequate anesthesia. COVARIATES: The covariates were jaw involved, age, sex, and race, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, current tobacco use, history of psychiatric illness, chronic pain, and preoperative pain score. ANALYSES: Test statistics were calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Spearman rank correlation test, χ2 test for bivariate analyses, and Fisher's exact test. P values ≤ .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The final sample was 114 subjects. The mean age of the sample was 42.97 years, standard deviation ±13.43 years. The sample was 39.47% male. The racial demographics were Caucasian (62.28%) and African American (33.33%). Buffered lidocaine did not have a statistically significant relationship with any of the outcomes. The jaw involved had a statistically significant association to the injection pain score (P value = .006), and the number of rounds of anesthetic required (P value = .047). Age showed a statistically significant association to injection pain score (P value = .032), and the number of rounds of anesthetic required (P value = .027). Finally, preoperative pain had a statistically significant relationship with injection pain score (P value = < .001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this study, bicarbonate buffered lidocaine did not exhibit any discernible advantages over nonbuffered lidocaine for any study outcomes.

Effect of lidocaine on postoperative analgesia of endoscopic rubber band ligation combined with injection sclerotherapy for treatment of internal hemorrhoids: A retrospective study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic minimally invasive treatment of internal hemorrhoids may cause postoperative pain. The aim of the study is to investigate the analgesic effect of lidocaine plus lauromacrogol on postoperative pain caused by endoscopic rubber band ligation (ERBL) combined with injection sclerotherapy (IS) for internal hemorrhoids treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data of grade Ⅲ internal hemorrhoids patients who underwent ERBL combined with IS in department of Digestive Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University, were retrospectively analyzed. According to difference in the composition of sclerosing solution, the patients were divided into control group (lauromacrogol group, 46 patients) and study group (lidocaine plus lauromacrogol group, 20 patients). Postoperative pain (quantized by Visual Analogue Scale, VAS), pain relief time and postoperative adverse reactions were compared. The therapeutic effect was followed up 1 month after operation. RESULTS: VAS of postoperative pain was 0.80 ± 0.42 points and pain relief time was 0.90 ± 0.56 days in the study group, while VAS of postoperative pain was 4.11 ± 1.37 points and pain relief time was 2.57 ± 0.83 days in the control group, there was statistical difference between them (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions and follow-up therapeutic effect between the control group and the study group. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine plus lauromacrogol is useful for pain alleviation on ERBL combined with IS for internal hemorrhoids treatment because of its convenient procedure, low adverse reaction incidence and good therapeutic effect, which is worthy of promotion.

Efficacy of analgesia promoted by lidocaine and articaine in third molar extraction surgery. A split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000), and 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) in third molar extraction surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent surgeries to extract upper and lower third molars were included in this split-mouth, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. The groups in this study were divided according to the anesthetic solution used to provide local anesthesia during extraction of upper and lower third molars: (1) 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000); (2) 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000). The time to the beginning and end of the sensation of analgesia, pain sensation according to the VAS scale, and number of anesthetic tubes necessary for supplementation were analyzed. RESULTS: It was found that the onset time for analgesia was shorter on the side anesthetized with articaine compared to the side anesthetized with lidocaine (122.1 ± 52.90 s vs. 144.5 ± 68.85 s) (p < 0.05). In addition, the number of tubes used for anesthetic supplementation was also reduced on the articaine side compared to the lidocaine side (0.26 ± 0.48 vs. 0.50 ± 0.75) (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the anesthetic solutions in the other evaluated parameters. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the use of 4% articaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000) reduced the time of onset of analgesia and the necessity for anesthetic supplementation in third molar extraction surgeries compared to the use of 2% lidocaine associated with epinephrine (1:100,000).

Glossopharyngeal neuralgia due to vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia: a case report.

Glossopharyngeal neuralgia due to vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia is a rare form of neuropathic pain, and presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Clinical presentation: A 67-year-old man presented with severe burning pain in the left oral cavity, with no explanatory findings during dental and ear, nose, and throat evaluations. Temporomandibular joint examination revealed tenderness, and panoramic radiographs showed a noncontributory periapical radiolucency. Magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance angiography revealed abnormally tortuous vertebral arteries compressing the glossopharyngeal nerves and the brainstem. Topical lidocaine reduced pain, confirming glossopharyngeal neuralgia. Carbamazepine was initially ineffective, but at 200 mg pain reduced from 90 to 20 on the visual analog scale. The patient requested and underwent microvascular decompression surgery, which eliminated his pain. Conclusion: When the vertebral artery compresses the glossopharyngeal nerve, the pain is more intense, attributed to its thicker vascular structure. Local anesthetic testing aids in identifying glossopharyngeal neuralgia. Dental practitioners must be skilled in diagnostics and possess anatomical knowledge for accurate evaluation and referral of throat and ear pain.

Optimisation of reduction for prolapsed silicone tube after lacrimal intubation.

BACKGROUND: A common complication of bicanalicular intubation is dislocation of the silicone tube. METHODS: Eleven patients with prolapsed silicone tubes who had undergone bicanalicular nasal intubation were injected with a 2 per cent lidocaine solution to infiltrate the lacrimal duct mucosa. A memory wire probe was used to pull a 4-0 suture through the lacrimal passage retrogradely, allowing the suture to grab the silicone tube. Paraffin oil was applied to the contact part of the rope and the silicone tube, then the distal end of the silk thread was removed from the nostril until the tube was pulled into place. RESULTS: The prolapsed silicone tubes were restored by surgery in nine patients, with the drainage tube in the correct position in the eye and the lacrimal duct irrigation unobstructed. CONCLUSION: The optimisations made in this study are considered effective adjustments of reduction surgery for a prolapsed silicone tube.