Lidocaine Inhibits Rat Prostate Cancer Cell Invasiveness and Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel Expression in Plasma Membrane.

There is increasing evidence, mostly from breast cancer, that use of local anaesthetics during surgery can inhibit disease recurrence by suppressing the motility of the cancer cells dependent on inherent voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs). Here, the possibility that lidocaine could affect cellular behaviours associated with metastasis was tested using the Dunning cell model of rat prostate cancer. Mostly, the strongly metastatic (VGSC-expressing) Mat-LyLu cells were used under both normoxic and hypoxic conditions. The weakly metastatic AT-2 cells served for comparison in some experiments. Lidocaine (1-500 µM) had no effect on cell viability or growth but suppressed Matrigel invasion dose dependently in both normoxia and hypoxia. Used as a control, tetrodotoxin produced similar effects. Exposure to hypoxia increased Nav1.7 mRNA expression but VGSCα protein level in plasma membrane was reduced. Lidocaine under both normoxia and hypoxia had no effect on Nav1.7 mRNA expression. VGSCα protein expression was suppressed by lidocaine under normoxia but no effect was seen in hypoxia. It is concluded that lidocaine can suppress prostate cancer invasiveness without effecting cellular growth or viability. Extended to the clinic, the results would suggest that use of lidocaine, and possibly other local anaesthetics, during surgery can suppress any tendency for post-operative progression of prostate cancer.

Fabrication of lidocaine-loaded polymer dissolving microneedles for rapid and prolonged local anesthesia.

There is an urgent need for research into effective interventions for pain management to improve patients' life quality. Traditional needle and syringe injection were used to administer the local anesthesia. However, it causes various discomforts, ranging from brief stings to trypanophobia and denial of medical operations. In this study, a dissolving microneedles (MNs) system made of composite matrix materials of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and sodium hyaluronate (HA) was successfully developed for the loading of lidocaine hydrochloride (LidH). The morphology, size and mechanical properties of the MNs were also investigated. After the insertion of MNs into the skin, the matrix at the tip of the MNs was swelled and dissolved by absorption of interstitial fluid, leading to a rapid release of loaded LidH from MNs' tips. And the LidH in the back patching was diffused into deeper skin tissue through microchannels created by MNs insertion, forming a prolonged anesthesia effect. In addition, the back patching of MNs could be acted as a drug reservoir to form a prolonged local anesthesia effect. The results showed that LidH MNs provided a superior analgesia up to 8 h, exhibiting a rapid and long-lasting analgesic effects. Additionally, tissue sectioning and in vitro cytotoxicity tests indicated that the MNs patch we developed had a favorable biosafety profile.

SUNCT, SUNA and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks: Debates and an update.

BACKGROUND: Short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (SUNHA) have the features of both short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform pain, such as trigeminal neuralgia or stabbing headache, and associated trigeminal autonomic symptoms, such as paroxysmal hemicrania or cluster headache. Recognizing and adequately treating SUNHA is essential but current treatment methods are ineffective in treating SUNHA. METHODS: We reviewed the changes in the concept of short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks and provide a narrative review of the current medical and surgical treatment options, from the first choice of treatment for patients to treatments for selective intractable cases. RESULTS: Unlike the initial impression of an intractable primary headache disorder affecting older men, SUNHA affects both sexes throughout their lifespan. One striking feature of SUNHA is that the attacks are triggered by cutaneous or intraoral stimulation. The efficacy of conventional treatments is disappointing and challenging, and preventive therapy is the mainstay of treatment because of highly frequent attacks of a very brief duration. Amongst them, lamotrigine is effective in approximately two-third of the patients with SUNHA, and intravenous lidocaine is essential for the management of acute exacerbation of intractable pain. Topiramate, oxcarbazepine and gabapentin are considered good secondary options for SUNHA, and botulinum toxin can be used in selective cases. Neurovascular compression is commonly observed in SUNHA, and surgical approaches, such as neurovascular compression, have been reported to be effective for intractable cases. CONCLUSIONS: Recent advances in the understanding of SUNHA have improved the recognition and treatment approaches for this unique condition.

Examination of the Rate and Extent of Drug Released from Commercial Topical Delivery Systems During Wear: An Example with Lidocaine Topical Systems.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the extent and rate of lidocaine released in vivo from two bioequivalent topical delivery systems (TDS) by using complementary assessments: pharmacokinetic analysis in healthy human volunteers, and residual lidocaine in TDS following 12 h of wear. The goal was to explore a potentially more clinically meaningful strength presentation than percent active pharmaceutical ingredient loaded in topical systems. METHODS: A three-arm, open-label, crossover clinical study was conducted in 23 human subjects, with 5% lidocaine topical systems from two manufacturers, and intravenous lidocaine administration. Residual drug and LC-MS/MS analyses were performed on worn TDS and serum samples. The rate and extent of drug released from the TDS during wear were determined through (1) calculations of consumed lidocaine via analysis of residual drug in worn TDS, and (2) a pharmacokinetic approach via derivation of the absolute clearance and serum lidocaine concentration at steady state. RESULTS: Overall the pharmacokinetic approach underestimated the amount transferred to the subject and exhibited greater variability, which may relate to natural inter-subject variability in pharmacokinetic parameters. Further, lidocaine TDS are intended for localized, not systemic, delivery and this may also explain some of the variability seen in the systemic serum concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The residual drug and pharmacokinetic approaches align well for transdermal formulations, but the differences in administration route (topical versus transdermal) all but eliminates the potential use of the pharmacokinetic approach unless additional compartmental modeling is explored.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) are frequently employed for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal ailments. While propofol sedation is widely used during these procedures, there is a concern regarding its potential negative effects. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been suggested as an add-on to propofol sedation for GEPs, but current evidence on its efficiency and safety is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of IV lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol during GEPs. METHODS: Electronic databases were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 31 March 2023, investigating the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine addition to propofol sedation during GEPs. RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs involving 712 patients that received IV lidocaine and propofol for GEF and 719 patients that received propofol were analyzed. Adding IV lidocaine to propofol sedation led to significant reduction in pain after the procedure (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]; - 1.51 to - 0.32), decreased propofol usage (SMD = - 0.89; 95% CI, - 1.31 to - 0.48), lower recovery time (SMD = - 0.95 min; 95% CI, - 1.48 to - 0.43), and decreased pain score (SMD = - 0.91; 95% CI, - 1.51 to - 0.32). The overall rate of adverse events was markedly less in the lidocaine group than in the control group (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: Our results show that IV lidocaine improves patient outcomes by reducing post-procedural pain, decreasing propofol usage, shortening recovery time, and lowering pain scores. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunct to propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. However, further research is necessary to optimize the use of lidocaine and fully understand its long-term effects.

The analgesic effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for acute and chronic persistent postsurgical pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023420888.

Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

Analgesic Effects of Intraperitoneal Lidocaine in Adults Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The administration of local anaesthesia in intraperitoneal space as part of the multi-modal analgesic regimen has shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain. Recent studies demonstrated that intraperitoneal lidocaine may provide analgesic effects. Primary objective was to determine the impact of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative pain scores at rest. DESIGN: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing intraperitoneal lidocaine and placebo in adults undergoing surgery were included. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 24 RCTs (n = 1,824). The intraperitoneal lidocaine group was significantly associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest (MD: -0.87, 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.69) and at movement (MD: -0.50, 95% Cl: -0.93 to -0.08) among adult patients after surgery. Its administration also significantly decreased morphine consumption (MD: -6.42 mg, 95% Cl: -11.56 to -1.27), lowered the incidence of needing analgesia (OR: 0.22, 95% Cl: 0.14 to 0.35). Intraperitoneal lidocaine statistically reduced time to resume regular diet (MD: 0.16 days; 95% Cl: -0.31 to -0.01), and lowered postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.54, 95% Cl: 0.39 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: In this review, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose of administering intraperitoneal lidocaine among adult patients undergoing surgery.

Using part of the initial analgesic dose as the epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural test dose for labor analgesia is controversial and varies widely in clinical practice. It is currently unclear whether using a portion of the initial dose for analgesia as the test dose delays the onset time of analgesia, compared to the traditional test dose. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six parturients who chose epidural analgesia during labor were randomly assigned to two groups. The first dose in group L was 3 ml 1.5% lidocaine, and in the RF group was 10 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 µg/ml fentanyl. After 3 min of observation, both groups received 8 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 µg/ml fentanyl. The onset time of analgesia, motor and sensory blockade level, numerical pain rating scale, patient satisfaction score, and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The onset time of analgesia in group RF was similar to that in group L (group RF vs group L, 7.0 [5.0-9.0] minutes vs 8.0 [5.0-11.0] minutes, p = 0.197). The incidence of foot numbness (group RF vs group L, 34.9% vs 57.1%, p = 0.020) and foot warming (group RF vs group L, 15.9% vs 47.6%, p < 0.001) in group RF was significantly lower than that in group L. There was no difference between the two groups on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 1.5% lidocaine 3 ml, 0.1% ropivacaine 10 ml combined with 2 µg/ml fentanyl as an epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia, and the side effects were slightly reduced. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100043071).

Lidocaine spray vs mepivacaine local infiltration for suturing 1st/2nd grade perineal lacerations: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Perineal lacerations are a very common complication of post-partum. Usually, the repair of 1st and 2nd-grade lacerations is performed after the administration of local anesthesia. Despite the great relevance of the problem, there are only a few studies about the best choice of local anesthetic to use during suturing. We performed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of a local anesthetic spray during the suturing of perineal lacerations in the post-partum. METHODS: We compared the spray with the standard technique, which involves the infiltration of lacerated tissues, using the NRS scale. 136 eligible women who had given birth at University Hospital of Udine were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive nebulization of Lidocaine hydrochloride 10% spray (experimental group) or subcutaneous/submucosal infiltration of mepivacaine hydrochloride (control group) during suturing of perineal laceration. RESULTS: The lacerations included 84 1st-grade perineal traumas (61.7%) and 52 2nd-grade perineal traumas (38.2%). All the procedures were successfully completed without severe complications or serious adverse reactions. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood losses or total procedure time. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of NRS to none of the intervals considered. Regarding the application of the spray in the B group, in 36 cases (52.9%) it was necessary to improve the number of puffs previously supposed to be sufficient (5 puffs). Just in 3 cases, an additional injection was necessary (4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that lidocaine spray alone can be used as a first line of local anesthetic during the closure of I-II-grade perineal lacerations, as it has comparable efficacy to mepivacaine infiltration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was recorded on https://clinicaltrials.gov . Identification number: NCT05201313. First registration date: 21/01/2022. Unique Protocol ID: 0042698/P/GEN/ARCS.

Adjuvant Analgesics in Acute Pain - Evaluation of Efficacy.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Acute postoperative pain impacts a significant number of patients and is associated with various complications, such as a higher occurrence of chronic postsurgical pain as well as increased morbidity and mortality. RECENT FINDINGS: Opioids are often used to manage severe pain, but they come with serious adverse effects, such as sedation, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and impaired bowel function. Therefore, most enhanced recovery after surgery protocols promote multimodal analgesia, which includes adjuvant analgesics, to provide optimal pain control. In this article, we aim to offer a comprehensive review of the contemporary literature on adjuvant analgesics in the management of acute pain, especially in the perioperative setting. Adjuvant analgesics have proven efficacy in treating postoperative pain and reducing need for opioids. While ketamine is an established option for opioid-dependent patients, magnesium and α2-agonists have, in addition to their analgetic effect, the potential to attenuate hemodynamic responses, which make them especially useful in painful laparoscopic procedures. Furthermore, α2-agonists and dexamethasone can extend the analgesic effect of regional anesthesia techniques. However, findings for lidocaine remain inconclusive.

Comparison between intravenous lidocaine and dexamethasone in reducing postoperative sore throat after endotracheal extubation at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative sore throat is the common complaint and uncomfortable side effect in patients receiving general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Drugs with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, like steroids and local anesthetics, are the best options for postoperative sore throat prophylaxis. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous lidocaine and dexamethasone in reducing postoperative sore throat following endotracheal extubation at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from January 1 to March 30, 2023 G.C. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. Data from 50 patients in the lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg), 50 in the dexamethasone (8 mg), and 49 in the control groups were analyzed. The data were collected using observation based on structured questionnaires. A systematic random sampling technique was applied to select respondents. The data were entered into EpiData version 4.6.0.6 and transferred to STATA version 17 statistical software for analysis. A comparison of continuous data among the groups were performed using a one-way ANOVA test for parametric data. The Kruskal-Wallis rank test was used for non-parametric data. Associations between variables were tested using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine degree of association. RESULTS: The incidence of POST was 40%, 32%, and 57.1% in the lidocaine, dexamethasone, and control groups, respectively (P = .0356). Dexamethasone reduced the incidence of POST during the first 24 h (AOR: 0.374, 95% CI: 0.149-0.939). However, no difference was observed in the severity of POST at 3 h (p = 0.130), 6 h (p = 0.096), 12 h (p = 0.313), and 24 h (p = 0.525) of the post-extubation period among the three groups. IV lidocaine did not effectively reduce the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat at different time intervals. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Intravenous dexamethasone is more effective than intravenous lidocaine in reducing the incidence of postoperative sore throat among the groups. Based on these findings, intravenous dexamethasone is recommended to decrease the incidence of postoperative sore throat.

50% efficacy dose of intravenous lidocaine in supressing sufentanil-induced cough in children: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioids such as sufentanil are used as anaesthetics due to their rapid action and superior analgesic effect. However, sufentanil induces a huge cough in paediatric patients. In contrast, intravenous (IV) lidocaine suppresses opioid-induced cough in children, but its use is limited due to anaesthetists' concern about its toxicity. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of dose-dependent IV lidocaine on sufentanil-induced cough (SIC) in paediatric patients. METHODS: A total of 188 patients aged 3-12 years scheduled for elective tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy were enrolled and divided into four groups depending on different dose of lidocaine: A (0 mg.kg-1), B (1 mg.kg-1), C (1.5 mg.kg-1), and D (2 mg.kg-1). The primary outcome was the SIC grade observed during the induction of general anaesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of SIC, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate at T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. RESULTS: The SIC grade was significantly different between groups A and D (P = 0.04) and between groups B and D (P = 0.03). Moreover, the incidence of SIC in groups A, B, C, and D was 81%, 87%, 68%, and 64%, respectively, and the difference between groups B and C (P = 0.03) and between groups B and D (P = 0.0083) was statistically significant. No statistical differences were observed in the hemodynamic parameters between the groups. The incidence of severe cough was statistically different between group D and group A (P < 0.0001), between group D and group B (P < 0.0001), and between group D and group C (P < 0.0001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine suppresses SIC in a dose-dependent manner without severe adverse events. IV lidocaine can be used in paediatric patients safely and efficiently, and the median effective dose was 1.75 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yichang Central People's Hospital (HEC-KYJJ-2020-038-02), The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100053006).

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.

Effect of cuff inflation with lidocaine, saline, and air on tracheal tube cuff pressure during laparoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasms: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal tube cuff pressure will increase after pneumoperitoneum when the cuff is inflated with air, high pressure can cause tracheal mucosal damage. This prospective trial aimed to assess if inflating with normal saline or lidocaine can prevent increase of tracheal tube cuff pressure and tracheal mucosal damage in laparoscopic surgeries with general anesthesia. Whether changes of tracheal tube cuff transverse diameter (CD) can predict changes of tracheal tube cuff pressure. METHODS: Ninety patients scheduled for laparoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasms under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to groups air (A), saline (S) or lidocaine (L). Endotracheal tube cuff was inflated with room-temperature air in group A (n = 30), normal saline in group S (n = 30), 2% lidocaine hydrochloride injection in group L (n = 30). After intubation, tracheal tube cuff pressure was monitored by a calibrated pressure transducers, cuff pressure was adjusted to 25 cmH2O (T0.5). Tracheal tube cuff pressure at 15 min after pneumoperitoneum (T1) and 15 min after exsufflation (T2) were accessed. CD were measured by ultrasound at T0.5 and T1, the ability of ΔCD (T1-0.5) to predict cuff pressure was accessed. Tracheal mucous injury at the end of surgery were also recorded. RESULTS: Tracheal tube cuff pressure had no significant difference among the three groups at T1 and T2. ΔCD had prediction value (AUC: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.81-1.02]; sensitivity: 0.99; specificity: 0.82) for cuff pressure. Tracheal mucous injury at the end of surgery were 0 (0, 1.0) in group A, 0 (0, 1.0) in group S, 0 (0, 0) in group L (p = 0.02, group L was lower than group A and S, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to inflation with air, normal saline and 2% lidocaine cannot ameliorate the increase of tracheal tube cuff pressure during the pneumoperitoneum period under general anesthesia, but lidocaine can decrease postoperative tracheal mucosa injury. ΔCD measured by ultrasound is a predictor for changes of tracheal tube cuff pressure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2100054089, Date: 08/12/2021.

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.

Comparing intravenous lidocaine and pethidine for pain management in emergency department patients with femoral bone fracture: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine has shown promise as an effective analgesic in various clinical settings, but its utility for pain management in emergency departments, especially for bone fractures, remains relatively understudied. OBJECTIVE: This study compared intravenous lidocaine to pethidine for femoral bone fracture pain management. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the emergency department of AJA University of Medical Sciences affiliated hospitals. Patients aged 18-70 years-old with femoral bone fracture and experiencing severe pain, defined as a numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain ≥ 7, were included in the study. One group received intravenous pethidine (25 mg), while the other group received intravenous lidocaine (3 mg/kg, not exceeding 200 mg), infused with 250 ml saline over 20 min. Pain levels were evaluated before treatment administration (0 min) and at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after treatment administration using the NRS. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study. Demographic characteristics and pain scores were similar between the two groups. The mean pain scores upon arrival for the lidocaine and pethidine groups were 8.50 ± 1 and 8.0 ± 1, respectively; after one hour, they were 4.0 ± 1 and 4.0 ± 1, respectively. While there was a statistically significant reduction in pain in both groups after one hour, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.262). Pethidine had a higher incidence of adverse events, though not statistically significant. Additionally, females required more rescue analgesics. CONCLUSION: The administration of intravenous lidocaine is beneficial for managing pain in femoral bone fractures, suggesting that lidocaine could be a potent alternative to opioids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT20231213060355N1 ( https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74624 ) (30/12/2023).

Efficacy of intra-arterial lidocaine administration on pain and inflammatory response after uterine artery embolization for symptomatic fibroids.

BACKGROUND: There have been conflicting outcomes regarding the use of lidocaine to reduce pain after uterine artery embolization (UAE). PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of intra-arterial lidocaine injection for pain and inflammatory response control within 24 h of UAE for symptomatic uterine fibroids. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Of 1530 patients who underwent UAE for uterine fibroids in 2007-2021, 5 mL of 1% lidocaine was injected into each uterine artery immediately after UAE in 23 patients. A disease-matched control group (n = 23) who did not receive intra-arterial lidocaine was generated from the same registry. The pain score, white blood cell (WBC) count, C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and fentanyl consumption were compared before and after UAE. Complete infarction of the dominant fibroid was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Significantly lower WBC count, CRP level, and NLR were noted 24 h after UAE in the lidocaine group. No statistically significant difference was noted in the pain score between groups at 0-24 h. The cumulative fentanyl dose administered during the first 24 h after UAE was not significantly different. After embolization, fibroid-related symptoms resolved in all patients. No significant difference was observed in the rate of complete infarction of the dominant fibroid. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine administration immediately after UAE resulted in a significant reduction in the inflammatory response. However, such a difference in the inflammatory reaction did not contribute to significant reductions in pain scores or fentanyl consumption.

Avoiding pain during propofol injection in pediatric anesthesia: Hypnoanalgesia of the hand versus intravenous lidocaine.

INTRODUCTION: Pain related to injection of propofol during induction of anesthesia decreases from 66.8% without prevention, to 22-31% of cases when lidocaine is associated. Hypnoanalgesia of the hand is currently used for painful procedures in children but has never been evaluated in this indication. The primary aim of this prospective randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy of hypnoanalgesia of the hand for the prevention of moderate to severe pain during intravenous injection of propofol alone in comparison to lidocaine admixture. The secondary aim was to compare the global satisfaction of children in both methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients aged 7-14 years, ASA 1-2, admitted for scheduled surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group L received a mixture of 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) and 1% Lidocaine (0.3 mg/kg). Group H received 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) after hypnoanalgesia of the hand realized by a single experimented operator. A video was made in order to evaluate the pain related to propofol injection by a blinded observer using the 4-point score of Cameron (painful ≥ 2). The global satisfaction of children was evaluated in postanesthesia care unit and documented if visual analog score was <7/10. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were analyzed. The rate of painful patients did not differ significantly between groups (8.5% in group H [n = 47] vs 6.1% in group L [n = 49], OR= 0.70; 95% CI [0.13-3.35], p = 0.65), nor did the rate of nonsatisfied patients (10.6 in group H vs. 12.2% in group L, OR = 0.85; 95% CI [0.19-3.65], p = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hypnoanalgesia of the hand alone is effective to prevent the pain related to propofol injection in children. No significant difference was found in comparison with lidocaine admixture nor for pain or satisfaction.

Lidocaine patch as noninvasive alternative treatment option in children with anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome: A retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Chronic abdominal pain in children is occasionally caused by anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome (ACNES). Diagnosing and treating this typical peripheral abdominal wall neuropathy is challenging. Management usually starts with minimally invasive tender point injections. Nevertheless, these injections can be burdensome and might even be refused by children or their parents. However, a surgical neurectomy is far more invasive. Treatment with a Lidocaine 5% medicated patch is successfully used in a variety of peripheral neuropathies. AIMS: This single center retrospective case series aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine patches in children with ACNES. METHODS: Children aged under 18 diagnosed with ACNES who were treated with a 10 day lidocaine patch treatment between December 2021 and December 2022 were studied. Patient record files were used to collect treatment outcomes including pain reduction based on NRS and complications. RESULTS: Twelve of sixteen children (mean age 13 years; F:M ratio 3:1) diagnosed with ACNES started the lidocaine patch treatment. Two patients achieved a pain free status and remained pain free during a 4 and 7 months follow-up. A third child reported a lasting pain reduction, but discontinued treatment due to a temporary local skin rash. Five additional patients reported pain reduction only during application of the patch. The remaining four children experienced no pain relief. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine patches provides pain relief in a substantial portion of children with ACNES.