Serum Biomarkers of a Pro-Neuroinflammatory State May Define the Pre-Operative Risk for Postoperative Delirium in Spine Surgery.

Advances in spine surgery enable technically safe interventions in older patients with disabling spine disease, yet postoperative delirium (POD) poses a serious risk for postoperative recovery. This study investigates biomarkers of pro-neuroinflammatory states that may help objectively define the pre-operative risk for POD. This study enrolled patients aged ≥60 scheduled for elective spine surgery under general anesthesia. Biomarkers for a pro-neuroinflammatory state included S100 calcium-binding protein ß (S100ß), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), Gasdermin D, and the soluble ectodomain of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2). Postoperative changes of Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were assessed as markers of systemic inflammation preoperatively, intraoperatively, and early postoperatively (up to 48 h). Patients with POD (n = 19, 75.7 ± 5.8 years) had higher pre-operative levels of sTREM2 (128.2 ± 69.4 pg/mL vs. 97.2 ± 52.0 pg/mL, p = 0.049) and Gasdermin D (2.9 ± 1.6 pg/mL vs. 2.1 ± 1.4 pg/mL, p = 0.29) than those without POD (n = 25, 75.6 ± 5.1 years). STREM2 was additionally a predictor for POD (OR = 1.01/(pg/mL) [1.00-1.03], p = 0.05), moderated by IL-6 (Wald-χ2 = 4.06, p = 0.04). Patients with POD additionally showed a significant increase in IL-6, IL-1ß, and S100ß levels on the first postoperative day. This study identified higher levels of sTREM2 and Gasdermin D as potential markers of a pro-neuroinflammatory state that predisposes to the development of POD. Future studies should confirm these results in a larger cohort and determine their potential as an objective biomarker to inform delirium prevention strategies.

Duration of Surgery and Intraoperative Blood Pressure Management Are Modifiable Risk Factors for Postoperative Neurocognitive Disorders After Spine Surgery: Results of the Prospective CONFESS Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective quasi-experimental observational study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether duration of surgery is a modifiable risk factor for postoperative delirium (POD) after spine surgery and explore further modifiable risk factors. In addition, we sought to investigate the association between POD and postoperative cognitive dysfunction and persistent neurocognitive disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Advances in spine surgery enable technically safe interventions in elderly patients with disabling spine disease. The occurrence of POD and delayed neurocognitive complications ( e.g. postoperative cognitive dysfunction/persistent neurocognitive disorder) remain a concern since these contribute to inferior functional outcomes and long-term care dependency after spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective single-center study recruited patients aged 60 years or above and scheduled for elective spine surgery between February 2018 and March 2020. Functional (Barthel Index, BI) and cognitive outcomes [Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) test battery; telephone Montréal Cognitive Assessment] were assessed at baseline, three (V3), and 12 months postoperatively. The primary hypothesis was that the duration of surgery predicts POD. Multivariable predictive models of POD included surgical and anesthesiological parameters. RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of patients developed POD (n=22/99). In a multivariable model, duration of surgery [OR adj =1.61/h (95% CI, 1.20-2.30)], age [OR adj =1.22/yr (95% CI, 1.10-1.36)], and baseline deviations of intraoperative systolic blood pressure [25th percentile: OR adj =0.94/mm Hg (95% CI, 0.89-0.99); 90th percentile: OR adj =1.07/mm Hg (95% CI, 1.01-1.14)] were significantly associated with POD. Postoperative cognitive scores generally improved (V3, ΔCERAD total z -score: 0.22±0.63). However, this positive group effect was counteracted by POD [beta: -0.87 (95% CI, -1.31 to 0.42)], older age [beta: -0.03/yr (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.01)], and lack of functional improvement [ΔBI; beta: -0.04/point (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02)]. Cognitive scores at twelve months remained inferior in the POD group, adjusted for baseline cognition/age. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified distinct neurocognitive effects after spine surgery, which are influenced by perioperative risk factors. Potential cognitive benefits are counteracted by POD, rendering its prevention critical in an aging population.

Correction: Evaluating Mechanisms of Postoperative Delirium and Cognitive Dysfunction Following Elective Spine Surgery in Elderly Patients (CONFESS): Protocol for a Prospective Observational Trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/15488.].

Evaluating Mechanisms of Postoperative Delirium and Cognitive Dysfunction Following Elective Spine Surgery in Elderly Patients (CONFESS): Protocol for a Prospective Observational Trial.

BACKGROUND: Elderly people are at particular high risk for postoperative delirium (POD) following spine surgery, which is associated with longer hospital stays, higher costs, risk for delayed complications, long-term care dependency, and cognitive dysfunction (POCD). It is insufficiently understood which mechanisms and risk factors contribute to the development of POD and POCD following these major but plannable surgeries. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify modifiable risk factors in spine surgery. A better understanding thereof would help adapt medical management and surgical strategies to individual risk profiles. METHODS: This is a single-center observational study jointly conducted by the departments of neurosurgery, neurology, and anesthesiology at a tertiary care hospital in Germany. All patients aged 60 years and older presenting to the neurosurgery outpatient clinic or ward for elective spine surgery are screened for eligibility. Exclusion criteria include presence of neurodegenerative or history of psychiatric disease and medication with significant central nervous system activity (eg, antidepressants, antipsychotics, sedatives). Surgical and anesthetic procedures including duration of surgery as primary end point of this study are thoroughly documented. All patients are furthermore evaluated for their preoperative cognitive abilities by a number of tests, including the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Plus test battery. Physical, mental, and social health and well-being are assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Profile 29 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Patients additionally receive preoperative cerebrovascular ultrasound and structural and functional brain imaging. The immediate postoperative period includes screening for POD using the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale and validation through Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, criteria. We furthermore investigate markers of (neuro)inflammation (eg, interleukins, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor alpha). Preoperative examinations are repeated 3 months postoperatively to investigate the presence of POCD and its mechanisms. Statistical analyses will compare delirious and nondelirious patients for predictors of immediate (POD) and delayed (POCD) cognitive dysfunction. RESULTS: This is the first study to prospectively evaluate risk factors for POD and POCD in spine surgery. Recruitment is ongoing, and data collection is estimated to be finished with the inclusion of 200 patients by mid-2020. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of mechanisms, possibly common, underlying POD and POCD would be a major step toward defining effective interventional strategies early in or even before the postoperative period, including the adaptation of surgical strategies to individual risk profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03486288; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03486288. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15488.

Auricular acupuncture for treatment of preoperative anxiety in patients scheduled for ambulatory gynaecological surgery: a prospective controlled investigation with a non-randomised arm.

OBJECTIVE: Auricular acupuncture (AA) is a promising alternative treatment for situational anxiety. The aim of this pilot investigation was to test the acceptability and feasibility of AA as a treatment for preoperative anxiety (PA) in preparation for a subsequent randomised controlled trial. METHODS: AA was offered for treatment of PA to female patients who were scheduled for ambulatory gynaecological surgery. In patients who agreed, indwelling fixed needles were applied bilaterally at the points MA-IC1, MA-TF1, MA-SC, MA-AH7 and MA-T the day before surgery. Patients who declined AA but agreed to be examined constituted the control group (no intervention). State anxiety (primary outcome) was measured using the State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI) before AA (time I), the evening before surgery (time II) and immediately before surgery (time III). Anxiety was measured with a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS-100); heart rate, blood pressure and serum cortisol were also quantified. RESULTS: Data from 62 patients (32 with AA and 30 with no intervention) were analysed. Whereas preoperative anxiety was reduced after AA the evening before surgery (P<0.01), anxiety levels in the control group increased from the first to the last measurement (P<0.001). Secondary outcomes were comparable between the patients from both groups. CONCLUSIONS: AA was acceptable and feasible as a treatment for preoperative anxiety. The results were used for the sample size calculation of a subsequent randomised controlled clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02656966; Results.

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.

Auricular Acupoints with Reduced Skin Resistance: Detection in Patients Scheduled for Hip Arthroplasty.

Objective: The detection of auricular acupuncture (AA) points by measuring electrical skin resistance (ESR) is often used in diagnostics and therapy; however, systematic investigations of ESR in AA points are rare. The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of detection of AA points with reduced ESR in patients scheduled for unilateral hip arthroplasty. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from 2 prospective clinical trials, which studied the perioperative analgesic effects of AA in patients with unilateral degenerative hip osteoarthritis. Three AA points (MA-TF1, MA-AH4, and MA-IC1) were examined in these patients before arthroplasty surgery using a SVESA (Neuralstift SVESA 1070, SVESA, Muenchen, Germany) neural pen. The frequency of AA points detection on the ipsi- and contralateral sides of the affected hip joint was registered and analyzed with a χ2 test. Results: The data of 114 patients (60 females) were available for analysis. AA points with lower ESR were detected more frequently on the side ipsilateral to the affected joint rather than on the contralateral side: 81% versus 37% of patients (P < 0.0001). None of the AA points could be identified at all in 13% of patients with diabetes mellitus versus 3% of patients without diabetes mellitus (P = 0.07). Conclusions: AA points with low ESR were detected more frequently on the side ipsilateral to the underlying pathology. This finding is in agreement with neurophysiologic data. The therapeutic value of this finding should be clarified in future studies.

Timeliness of Operating Room Case Planning and Time Utilization: Influence of First and To-Follow Cases.

Resource and cost constraints in hospitals demand thorough planning of operating room schedules. Ideally, exact start times and durations are known in advance for each case. However, aside from the first case's start, most factors are hard to predict. While the role of the start of the first case for optimal room utilization has been shown before, data for to-follow cases are lacking. The present study therefore aimed to analyze all elective surgery cases of a university hospital within 1 year in search of visible patterns. A total of 14,014 cases scheduled on 254 regular working days at a university hospital between September 2015 and August 2016 underwent screening. After eliminating 112 emergencies during regular working hours, 13,547 elective daytime cases were analyzed, out of which 4,346 ranked first, 3,723 second, and 5,478 third or higher in the daily schedule. Also, 36% of cases changed start times from the day before to 7:00 a.m., with half of these (52%) resulting in a delay of more than 15 min. After 7:00 a.m., 87% of cases started more than 10 min off schedule, with 26% being early and 74% late. Timeliness was 15 ± 72 min (mean ± SD) for first, 21 ± 84 min for second, and 25 ± 93 min for all to-follow cases, compared to preoperative day planning, and 21 ± 45, 23 ± 61, and 19 ± 74 min compared to 7:00 a.m. status. Start time deviations were also related to procedure duration, with cases of 61-90 min duration being most reliable (deviation 9.8 ± 67 min compared to 7:00 a.m.), regardless of order. In consequence, cases following after 61-90 min long cases had the shortest deviations of incision time from schedule (16 ± 66 min). Taken together, start times for elective surgery cases deviate substantially from schedule, with first and second cases falling into the highest mean deviation category. Second cases had the largest deviations from scheduled times compared to first and all to-follow cases. While planned vs. actual start times differ among specialties, cases of 61-90 min duration had the most reliable start times, with neither shorter nor longer cases seeming to improve timeliness of start times.

Electric Nerve Stimulation Does Not Correctly Predict Needle-Nerve Distance and Potential Local Anesthetic Spread for Interscalene Brachial Plexus Blockade.

This study evaluated electric nerve stimulation as a nerve location tool. After eliciting motor response in 43 patients undergoing shoulder surgery, the needle tip's position, distance from the closest nerve, and spread of saline were evaluated using ultrasound imaging. The needle's tip resided 1 to 4 mm from the closest nerve in 21, in direct contact with it in 7, and 6 to 18 mm away in 15 patients. In 21 patients, subsequent saline dissection did not reach the brachial plexus. Thus, the success rate of electric nerve stimulation for correct needle-nerve distance identification was 48.8%, with correct fluid spread reached in only 51.2% of patients.

Feasibility and safety of dilatational tracheotomy using the rigid endoscope: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Fiberoptic tracheo-bronchoscopy is the most commonly used procedure for percutaneous dilational tracheotomy (PDT). However, PDT can be associated with major complications, including death. Furthermore it is unclear, whether the tracheal ring fractures may contribute to the development of tracheal stenosis after PDT nor whether tracheal ring fractures can be prevented by using a rigid endoscope for this procedure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of and the incidence of complications for PDT using the rigid tracheotomy endoscope (TED). METHODS: In a prospective multicenter observational study from 2006 to 2010, 180 adult patients in intensive care and those scheduled for ear, nose and throat surgery underwent PDT using TED. Data collection was performed using a structured protocol. The patients were observed according to PDT phase (phase 1: puncture, phase 2: dilatation and phase 3: cannula insertion). The descriptive data are given as the number (percent) of cases and the mean ± standard deviation (SD) where appropriate. The relationships between dichotomous and categorical parameters were analyzed using the chi-square test. P values ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: PDT was performed in 179 patients. The procedure time was 14.8 ± 6.2 (mean ± SD) minutes. Pneumothorax or procedure-related lethal complications did not occur. Other adverse events included tracheal ring fractures (17.1%), desaturations (6.8%), special incidents (6.2%), bleeding (5.5%), anesthesia complications (4.5%) and posterior tracheal wall injuries (1.1%). CONCLUSION: The use of TED in PDT is feasible, and the incidence of complications and adverse events was comparable with that of PDT using the flexible endoscope. Tracheal ring fractures in PDT cannot be avoided by the use of a rigid endoscope. With TED, the airway always remains open thus the use of jet ventilation via the TED during PDT is possible.

Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of ultrasound-guided axillary plexus blockade in pediatric patients with epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica.

BACKGROUND: In patients suffering from epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica (DEB), the most severe form of epidermolysis bullosa, trauma or friction cause separation of the skin from underlying tissue with consecutive painful blisters, scarifications, contractures, and pseudosyndactyly. To retain functionality of the hands surgical procedures are necessary. Anesthesia is challenging as difficult airways make general anesthesia risky. Regional anesthesia is considered controversial in patients with EB as accidental subcutaneous injections can cause severe blisters. As ultrasound-guided procedures became standard of care this might have changed however. AIM: In this case series, we describe feasibility, efficacy, and safety of ultrasound-guided plexus axillaris block in DEB patients undergoing hand surgery. METHOD: We performed a retrospective analysis of the charts of all children with DEB undergoing hand surgery under plexus axillaris block and sedation between 2009 and 2013 in our institution. RESULTS: Nineteen procedures in nine children were performed. Induction of anesthesia (securing monitoring, sedation, plexus block) took a mean time of 34 min. Perioperative analgesia was adequate in all procedures. No complications such as airway incidents, conversion to general anesthesia, movement during surgery, incomplete block, or formation of new blisters were seen. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided plexus axillaris block in DEB patients undergoing hand surgery in our institution has been feasible, effective, and safe.

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.

Systemic lidocaine in surgical procedures: effects beyond sodium channel blockade.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review presents current data on the systemic administration of lidocaine. The focus is on studies in the perioperative setting. In addition, there is a brief look at experimental data on the effect of lidocaine at the molecular level. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent randomized prospective studies have reported lower postoperative pain values and less opioid administration in lidocaine groups in comparison with control groups receiving NaCl. However, there are conflicting data particularly in relation to patients undergoing nonabdominal surgery and on effects on postoperative resumption of bowel motility and hospital discharge times. Unfortunately, hardly any studies have investigated the effects of systemic lidocaine in comparison with epidural anesthesia. At the molecular level, a number of receptors and signal transduction cascades have been identified. SUMMARY: Positive effects on postoperative pain, as well as on bowel motility and hospital discharge time, have regularly been observed. However, contradictory findings have also been published. As almost all of the studies only include very small patient numbers, large multicenter investigations are needed.

Regional anesthetic procedures in immunosuppressed patients: risk of infection.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Due to demographic developments anesthesiologists encounter an increasing number of older and multimorbid patients in their daily routine. Consequently the proportion of immunosuppressed patients (e.g. those with cancer, diabetes mellitus, and those receiving immunosuppressive treatment and/or chemotherapy - e.g. for inflammatory bowel diseases, autoimmune diseases, and after transplantation) will also rise. Regional anesthesia (peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial blockade) may be beneficial in these patients and will have to be considered in order to provide adequate pain management and minimize risks for the patients. RECENT FINDINGS: There is only little available research and data on regional anesthesia procedures in specific immunosuppressed patient population. However, recent analyses from great databases dealing with general postoperative pain management have been published. SUMMARY: So far, there are no guidelines available dealing with indications and limitations of regional anesthetic procedures in these patients. The complication rate is rare but potentially disastrous. However, the technique itself cannot be regarded as absolute contraindication for immunosuppressed patients if precautions are taken. An interdisciplinary approach regarding the indication of regional anesthesia techniques in immunosuppressed patients is recommended. Efforts must therefore be made to achieve an interdisciplinary consensus with relevant risk-benefit considerations.

Efficacy of intravenous paracetamol compared to dipyrone and parecoxib for postoperative pain management after minor-to-intermediate surgery: a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Paracetamol has a well established pharmacological profile, but its postoperative efficacy is in question. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy of intravenous paracetamol with other intravenous non-opioids as part of a multimodal concept for perioperative pain therapy. METHODS: Patients undergoing minor-to-intermediate surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to receive infusions of paracetamol (1 g every 6 h), dipyrone (1 g every 6 h), parecoxib (40 mg every 12 h) separated by infusions of physiological saline 0.9%, or placebo (0.9% saline every 6 h), respectively, for at least 48 h as part of a multimodal pain concept. Patient-controlled piritramide was administered as rescue medication. Dependent variables were recorded 1, 6, 18, 30 and 42 h after extubation and 1 week after surgery. Surgical and associated pain was scored as the primary outcome on a visual analogue scale. Additionally, time to first dose and total piritramide dosage, satisfaction, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, sedation, itching and sweating were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 196 patients were recruited. The efficacy of paracetamol was similar to that of the other non-opioid analgesics. Surgical pain was reduced with all non-opioids compared to placebo; there was no effect on associated pain. Piritramide dosage and incidence of side effects were not reduced. CONCLUSION: Intravenous paracetamol has equivalent efficacy to non-opioids dipyrone and parecoxib that improves postoperative pain therapy when used as part of a multimodal concept after minor-to-intermediate surgery.

Systemic lidocaine shortens length of hospital stay after colorectal surgery: a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the beneficial effects of perioperative systemic lidocaine on length of hospital stay, gastrointestinal motility, and the inflammatory response after colorectal surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery-induced stimulation of the inflammatory response plays a major role in the development of several postoperative disorders. Local anesthetics possess anti-inflammatory activity and are thought to positively affect patients' outcome after surgery. This double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial aimed to evaluate beneficial effects of systemic lidocaine and to provide insights into underlying mechanisms. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing colorectal surgery, not willing or unable to receive an epidural catheter, were randomly assigned to lidocaine or placebo treatment. Before induction of general anesthesia, an intravenous lidocaine bolus (1.5 mg/kg) was administered followed by a continuous lidocaine infusion (2 mg/min) until 4 hours postoperatively. Length of hospital stay, gastrointestinal motility, and pain scores were recorded and plasma levels or expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators determined. RESULTS: Lidocaine significantly accelerated return of bowel function and shortened length of hospital stay by one day. No difference could be observed in daily pain ratings. Elevated plasma levels of IL-6, IL-8, complement C3a, and IL-1ra as well as expression of CD11b, L- and P-selectin, and platelet-leukocyte aggregates were significantly attenuated by systemic lidocaine. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative intravenous lidocaine not only improved gastrointestinal motility but also shortened length of hospital stay significantly. Anti-inflammatory activity modulating the surgery-induced stress response may be one potential mechanism. Systemic lidocaine may thus provide a convenient and inexpensive approach to improve outcome for patients not suitable for epidural anesthesia.

Regional anaesthesia, local anaesthetics and the surgical stress response.

Epidural anaesthesia has the potential to improve patients' outcome after major surgical procedures by reducing postoperative morbidity and duration of recovery. Possible benefits include the attenuation of cardiac complications, an earlier return of gastrointestinal function associated with an increase in patients' comfort overall, decreased incidence of pulmonary dysfunction, beneficial effects on the coagulation system and a reduction in the inflammatory response. The underlying mechanisms, however, remain unclear. Since local anaesthetics (LAs), reabsorbed from the epidural space, seem to contribute to these effects, it is not easy to differentiate between the systemic effects of LAs and the effects of neuraxial blockade by epidural anaesthesia. Thus, in patients not able or willing to receive intra- and/or postoperative epidural analgesia, systemic administration of LAs may be considered to be a new therapeutic approach for the prevention of postoperative disorders by modulation of the peri- and postoperative inflammatory.