The Efficacy of Three Different Oral Hygiene Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis in Pediatric Patients Receiving Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is one of the side effects developed post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of a mouthwash mixture (lidocaine, sodium alginate, sucralfate, pheniramine) versus hyaluronic acid and a solution of sodium bicarbonate in terms of healing time and weight gain in the treatment of oral mucositis in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with hemato-oncological malignancies. METHODS: A total of 171 patients that received chemotherapy for the hematopoietic stem cell transplant were divided into three groups; group 1, treated with a mixed mouthwash of lidocaine, sodium alginate, sucralfate, and pheniramine; group 2, treated with hyaluronic acid; and group 3, treated with an aqueous solution of 5% sodium bicarbonate. Weight and mucositis scale scores derived from medical records of patients. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the mucositis scale scores between the groups on the transplant day and days 5, 10, 15 and 20 after the transplantation. At these measurement points, Group 2 (receiving hyaluronic acid) had a lower score, and Group 3 (who received sodium bicarbonate) had a higher score, especially on days 5 and 10 after the transplantation. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that hyaluronic acid is a more effective treatment option than the other oral care solutions that are frequently used for prophylaxis and treatment of oral mucositis.

A systematic review of procedural modalities in the treatment of notalgia paresthetica.

BACKGROUND: Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a rare condition characterized by localized pain and pruritus of the upper back, associated with a distinct area of hyperpigmentation. Given the lack of standardized treatment and the uncertain efficacy of available options, applying procedural methods is of growing interest in treating NP. AIMS: We sought to comprehensively evaluate the role of procedural treatments for NP. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science until November 14th, 2023. We also performed a citation search to detect all relevant studies. Original clinical studies published in the English language were included. RESULTS: Out of 243 articles, sixteen studies have reported various procedural modalities, with or without pharmacological components, in treating NP. Pharmacological procedures, including injections of botulinum toxin, lidocaine, and corticosteroids, led to a level of improvement in case reports and case series. However, botulinum toxin did not show acceptable results in a clinical trial. Moreover, non-pharmacological procedures were as follows: physical therapy, exercise therapy, kinesiotherapy, acupuncture and dry needling, electrical muscle stimulation, surgical decompression, and phototherapy. These treatments result in significant symptom control in refractory cases. Physical therapy can be considered a first-line choice or an alternative in refractory cases. CONCLUSION: Procedural modalities are critical in the multidisciplinary approach to NP, especially for patients who are refractory to topical and oral treatments. Procedural modalities include a spectrum of options that can be applied based on the disease's symptoms and severity.

Lidocaine attenuates TMZ resistance and inhibits cell migration by modulating the MET pathway in glioblastoma cells.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most aggressive type of malignant brain tumor. Currently, the predominant clinical treatment is the combination of surgical resection with concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy, using temozolomide (TMZ) as the primary chemotherapy drug. Lidocaine, a widely used amide­based local anesthetic, has been found to have a significant anticancer effect. It has been reported that aberrant hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/mesenchymal­epithelial transition factor (MET) signaling plays a role in the progression of brain tumors. However, it remains unclear whether lidocaine can regulate the MET pathway in GBM. In the present study, the clinical importance of the HGF/MET pathway was analyzed using bioinformatics. By establishing TMZ­resistant cell lines, the impact of combined treatment with lidocaine and TMZ was investigated. Additionally, the effects of lidocaine on cellular function were also examined and confirmed using knockdown techniques. The current findings revealed that the HGF/MET pathway played a key role in brain cancer, and its activation in GBM was associated with increased malignancy and poorer patient outcomes. Elevated HGF levels and activation of its receptor were found to be associated with TMZ resistance in GBM cells. Lidocaine effectively suppressed the HGF/MET pathway, thereby restoring TMZ sensitivity in TMZ­resistant cells. Furthermore, lidocaine also inhibited cell migration. Overall, these results indicated that inhibiting the HGF/MET pathway using lidocaine can enhance the sensitivity of GBM cells to TMZ and reduce cell migration, providing a potential basis for developing novel therapeutic strategies for GBM.

The Pharmacologic Management of Cardiac Arrest.

The effectiveness of pharmacologic management of cardiac arrest patients is widely debated; however, several studies published in the past 5 years have begun to clarify some of these issues. This article covers the current state of evidence for the effectiveness of the vasopressor epinephrine and the combination of vasopressin-steroids-epinephrine and antiarrhythmic medications amiodarone and lidocaine and reviews the role of other medications such as calcium, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium, and atropine in cardiac arrest care. We additionally review the role of ß-blockers for refractory pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation and thrombolytics in undifferentiated cardiac arrest and suspected fatal pulmonary embolism.

Effect of intravenous and topical laryngeal lidocaine on sore throat after extubation: a prospective randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to compare the effect of topical laryngeal lidocaine with intravenous lidocaine before endotracheal intubation on the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat, hoarseness, and cough. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study enrolled 144 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with endotracheal intubation. The patients were randomized to three groups and received 2% lidocaine by topical laryngeal spray (group T), intravenous 2% lidocaine (group I), and the equivalent volume of intravenous saline (group C) before intubation. The incidence and severity of sore throat, hoarseness, and cough reaction at 0.5, 1, 6, and 24 h after extubation were collected. RESULTS: The incidence of sore throat was significantly lower in group T than in groups I and C (6.4% vs. 37.2% and 86.7%, p < 0.001), respectively at 0.5 h after extubation, and it was significantly lower in group I than that in group C (37.2% vs. 86.7%, p < 0.001). Both the incidence of hoarseness and cough were significantly lower in group T than in group I and in group C (14.9% vs. 97.7% and 97.8%, p < 0.001, and 19.1% vs. 72.0% and 93.3%, p < 0.001), respectively. The severity of sore throat, hoarseness and cough in group T was significantly lower than that in group I and that in group C (p < 0.05), and it was significantly lower in group I than in group C (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both topical laryngeal lidocaine and intravenous lidocaine before intubation have positive effects on preventing sore throat. Topical laryngeal route was superior to intravenous route. Chictr.org.cn ID: ChiCTR2100042442.

Efficacy and Clinical Value of Commonly Used Ingredients in Pain Management Compounds: A Literature Review.

The need for continued improvement in pain management is growing. This review is aimed towards identifying the literature regarding clinical and therapeutic value of the commonly used ingredients in pain management compounds: lidocaine, tetracaine, ketoprofen, ketamine, and gabapentin. Prospectively, future studies should be conducted to identify the exact benefits and side effects of compounded pain management therapies, such that these compounds can be effectively utilized when deemed appropriate.

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.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Analgesic Effects of Lidocaine Administered Intravenously or Intraperitoneally Post-Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reducing postoperative pain is still a tremendous challenge for perioperative clinicians. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that belongs to the amide class and has anti-inflammatory, anti-hyperalgesic, and analgesic effects. Extensive research has been conducted to determine the optimal route for its administration. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of perioperative intravenous lidocaine with that of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: EMBASE, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published through December 2022 that compared patients receiving perioperative intravenous lidocaine with those receiving intraperitoneal lidocaine. The primary outcome measures included the pain score, as evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale, and opioid analgesia requirements. The secondary outcome measures were hospitalization length, gastrointestinal function recovery, etc. The data were acquired and recorded in electronic spreadsheets that had been designed for this purpose. METHODS: This systematic review's design was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to examine the certainty of the evidence. Furthermore, we examined the dependability of the calculated (favorable) treatment effects through considerations of information size and modified significance thresholds (trial sequential analysis). RESULTS: Seven trials including 478 patients were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that compared with intravenous lidocaine, patients who received intraperitoneal lidocaine had lower pain scores at 4 hours (mean difference [MD] 1.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 2.59); 12 hours (MD 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30); and 24 hours (MD -0.12; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.17) postsurgery. However, no obvious difference in opioid consumption (P > 0.05) was found. In addition, the intraperitoneal lidocaine group had a longer postsurgery hospital stay than the intravenous lidocaine group (95%CI, -0.17 to -0.00; I2 = 0%). Intravenous lidocaine was more beneficial for achieving gastrointestinal return than intraperitoneal lidocaine (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.10; I2 = 2%). LIMITATIONS: The sample size of enrolled RCTs was small, which could potentially result in an overestimation or underestimation of the treatment effect in the collected data. There was high heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that post-abdominal surgery intraperitoneal lidocaine administration has a better analgesic effect than intravenous lidocaine, with a lower pain score. However, intravenous lidocaine is more beneficial for gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal surgery.

The comparative effectiveness of combined hydrodilatation/corticosteroid procedure with two different quantities for adhesive capsulitis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of injecting various amounts of fluid into the shoulder joints for capsule distension in patients with adhesive capsulitis. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinic of a tertiary care centre. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four patients with adhesive capsulitis underwent a baseline (time0), 6 weeks (time1), and 12 weeks (time2) follow-up after hydrodilitation. INTERVENTION: Group 1 (n = 42) received 20 ml of lidocaine, steroid, and saline hydrodilatation via posterior glenohumeral recess, while Group 2 (n = 42) received 10 ml of lidocaine, steroid, and saline hydrodilitation. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale for pain. The secondary outcomes were shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) and ROM of the shoulder. RESULTS: There was a significant reduce in VAS scores for pain, SPADI scores, and increased shoulder ROM in both groups over time; however, the group-by-time interactions for any of the outcomes between groups were not significant except VAS pain in motion. Post-hoc pairwise analysis of the marginal effect of time and group showed that the significant difference of VAS in motion is due to time effect: time1 vs time0 (95% CI -4.09 to -2.68), time2 vs time0 (-4.21 to -2.77), and time2 vs time1 (-0.83 to 0.63), without between-group difference: group 1 vs group 2 (-0.38 to 0.59). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests hydrodilatation achieved an optimal effect at time1 for patients with adhesive capsulitis in both groups, and adding more saline offers additional benefits in flexion and external roatation until time2.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Efficacy of intraoperative systemic lidocaine on quality of recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of intraoperative systemic lidocaine administration in major abdominal surgeries. We tested the hypothesis that systemic lidocaine is associated with an enhanced early quality of recovery in patients following laparoscopic colorectal resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly allocated 126 patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lidocaine (1.5 mg kg-1 bolus over 10 min, followed by continuous infusion at 2 mg kg-1 h-1 until the end of surgery) or identical volumes and rates of saline. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery-15 score assessed 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were areas under the pain numeric rating scale curve over time, 48-h morphine consumption, and adverse events. RESULTS: Compared with saline, systemic lidocaine improved the Quality of Recovery-15 score 24 h postoperatively, with a median difference of 4 (95% confidence interval: 1-6; p = 0.015). Similarly, the area under the pain numeric rating scale curve over 48 h at rest and on movement was reduced in the lidocaine group (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). However, these differences were not clinically meaningful. Lidocaine infusion reduced the intraoperative remifentanil requirements but not postoperative 48-h morphine consumption (p < 0.001 and p = 0.34, respectively). Additionally, patients receiving lidocaine had a quicker and earlier return of bowel function, as indicated by a shorter time to first flatus (log-rank p < 0.001), yet ambulation time was similar between groups (log-rank test, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, intraoperative systemic lidocaine resulted in statistically but not clinically significant improvements in quality of recovery (see Graphical Abstract).Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; ChiCTR1900027635.

Systemic lidocaine failed to clinically improve the overall quality of recovery following laparoscopic colorectal resection.Systemic lidocaine reduced intraoperative remifentanil and time to first flatus but not postoperative 48-h morphine consumption.No differences emerged in patient-reported outcomes like opioid side effects, mobility, or satisfaction between groups postoperatively.

Pain Control during the Treatment of Primary Palmar Hyperhidrosis with Botulinum Toxin A by a Topical Application of Liposomal Lidocaine: Clinical Effectiveness.

Primary palmar hyperhidrosis (PPH) constitutes a debilitating condition that profoundly impacts the social, functional, and occupational aspects of individuals. The intradermal administration of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) stands as an established therapeutic approach for PPH, albeit one frequently accompanied by considerable pain, posing challenges for patient tolerance. Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of combining cryoanalgesia spray (CA) with topical anesthesia utilizing a cream containing liposomal lidocaine at a concentration of 40 mg/g, with the objective of mitigating the pain associated with intradermal BoNT-A injection for PPH treatment. Nineteen participants, aged ≥18 years and afflicted with severe PPH, were enrolled in a double-blind randomized vehicle-controlled trial. Patient-perceived pain during the procedure was quantified using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Statistical analysis was applied to the collected data. The combination of CA and the topical application of liposomal lidocaine during BoNT-A treatment for PPH resulted in diminished pain compared to CA alone and the combination of CA with the application of a basic cream. Topical anesthesia through the application of a liposomal lidocaine-containing cream emerged as a facile, secure, and efficacious approach for alleviating the pain associated with intradermal BoNT-A injection in PPH treatment. Furthermore, it demonstrated compatibility with CA, thereby offering a comprehensive strategy for pain management during BoNT-A administration.

Adhesive polydopamine-based photothermal hybrid hydrogel for on-demand lidocaine delivery, effective anti-bacteria, and prolonged local long-lasting analgesia.

Considering the astonishing prevalence of localized pain affecting billions of patients worldwide, the development of advanced analgesic formulations or delivery systems to achieve clinical applicability is of great significance. In this study, an integrated PDA-based LiH@PDA@Ag@PAA@Gelatin system was designed for sustained delivery of lidocaine hydrochloride (LiH). By optimizing the preparation process and formulation of the hydrogel, the hydrogel exhibited superior mechanical properties, reversibility, adhesion strength, and self-healing attributes. Moreover, PDA@Ag nanoparticles were evenly dispersed within the hydrogel, and the optimized PDA@Ag@PAA@Gelatin showed a higher photothermal conversion efficiency than that of pure PDA. Importantly, LiH@PDA@Ag@PAA@Gelatin could effectively capture and eradicate bacteria through the synergistic interaction between near-infrared (NIR), PDA, Ag and LiH. In vitro and in vivo tests demonstrated that LiH@PDA@Ag@PAA@Gelatin exhibited higher drug delivery efficiency compared to commercial lidocaine patches. By evaluating the mechanical pain withdrawal threshold of the spared nerve injury (SNI) model in rats, it was proven that LiH@PDA@Ag@PAA@Gelatin enhanced and prolonged the analgesic effect of LiH. Furthermore, LiH@PDA@Ag@PAA@Gelatin induced by NIR possessed excellent on-demand photothermal analgesic ability. Therefore, this study develops a convenient method for preparing localized analgesic hydrogel patches, providing an important step towards advancing PDA-based on-demand pain relief applications.

What is in the pipeline for new treatments for bladder pain syndrome/ interstitial cystitis?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite available treatments, many bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) patients continue to have poor quality of life. Thus, there is an urge for new therapies. Our manuscript aims to review papers about BPS/IC treatments published in the last 2 years. RECENT FINDINGS: During this period, several treatments were tested, most of them new and others combining treatments already used. Pentosan polysulfate, interleukin 1 antagonist, low energy shock wave, physical therapy, hypnosis, acupuncture, clorpactin, dimethyl sulfoxide and hyaluronic acid plus botulinum toxin-A showed positive results. ASP3652 and lidocaine-releasing intravesical systems failed to prove their efficacy. SUMMARY: Validation of these studies is arduous due to the broad spectre of BPS/IC phenotypes, small number of patients enrolled, distinct outcome measures and short-term follow-up. It is also important to highlight that some authors combined therapies, and others split central and peripheric phenotypes before treatment. Therefore, soon, phenotyping and combining therapies with a step-by-step approach will be needed in BPS/IC treatment.

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.

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.