Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 20 de 5.294
1.
Skin Res Technol ; 30(5): e13723, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38696233

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.


Pruritus , Humans , Pruritus/therapy , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Paresthesia/therapy , Paresthesia/physiopathology , Hyperpigmentation/therapy , Physical Therapy Modalities , Acupuncture Therapy/methods , Botulinum Toxins/administration & dosage , Botulinum Toxins/therapeutic use , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Exercise Therapy/methods , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Dry Needling/methods
2.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 90(5): 397-408, 2024 05.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38771164

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


Lidocaine , Magnesium Sulfate , Pain, Postoperative , Quality of Life , Spinal Fusion , Humans , Magnesium Sulfate/administration & dosage , Magnesium Sulfate/therapeutic use , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Male , Female , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Adult , Middle Aged , Infusions, Intravenous , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use , Emotions , Young Adult , Adolescent , Double-Blind Method
3.
J Biomed Sci ; 31(1): 57, 2024 May 30.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38811967

Severe infection and sepsis are medical emergencies. High morbidity and mortality are linked to CNS dysfunction, excessive inflammation, immune compromise, coagulopathy and multiple organ dysfunction. Males appear to have a higher risk of mortality than females. Currently, there are few or no effective drug therapies to protect the brain, maintain the blood brain barrier, resolve excessive inflammation and reduce secondary injury in other vital organs. We propose a major reason for lack of progress is a consequence of the treat-as-you-go, single-nodal target approach, rather than a more integrated, systems-based approach. A new revolution is required to better understand how the body responds to an infection, identify new markers to detect its progression and discover new system-acting drugs to treat it. In this review, we present a brief history of sepsis followed by its pathophysiology from a systems' perspective and future opportunities. We argue that targeting the body's early immune-driven CNS-response may improve patient outcomes. If the barrage of PAMPs and DAMPs can be reduced early, we propose the multiple CNS-organ circuits (or axes) will be preserved and secondary injury will be reduced. We have been developing a systems-based, small-volume, fluid therapy comprising adenosine, lidocaine and magnesium (ALM) to treat sepsis and endotoxemia. Our early studies indicate that ALM therapy shifts the CNS from sympathetic to parasympathetic dominance, maintains cardiovascular-endothelial glycocalyx coupling, reduces inflammation, corrects coagulopathy, and maintains tissue O2 supply. Future research will investigate the potential translation to humans.


Sepsis , Humans , Sepsis/therapy , Adenosine/metabolism , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Magnesium/therapeutic use , Fluid Therapy/methods
4.
Klin Padiatr ; 236(3): 180-188, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38729129

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.


Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation , Stomatitis , Humans , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects , Child , Stomatitis/prevention & control , Stomatitis/chemically induced , Stomatitis/drug therapy , Male , Female , Retrospective Studies , Adolescent , Child, Preschool , Mouthwashes/therapeutic use , Hyaluronic Acid/therapeutic use , Hyaluronic Acid/administration & dosage , Hyaluronic Acid/adverse effects , Sodium Bicarbonate/therapeutic use , Sodium Bicarbonate/administration & dosage , Oral Hygiene , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Hematologic Neoplasms/therapy , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Sucralfate/therapeutic use
5.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 60(4)2024 Apr 13.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38674275

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.


Anesthetics, Local , Colposcopy , Lidocaine , Pain Measurement , Humans , Female , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Adult , Colposcopy/methods , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use , Pain Measurement/methods , Biopsy/methods , Middle Aged , Cervix Uteri/pathology , Cervix Uteri/drug effects , Pain Management/methods , Pain Management/standards , Pain/prevention & control , Pain/drug therapy , Pain/etiology , Pain, Procedural/prevention & control , Pain, Procedural/etiology
6.
Cardiol Clin ; 42(2): 279-288, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38631795

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.


Amiodarone , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Heart Arrest , Humans , Anti-Arrhythmia Agents/therapeutic use , Amiodarone/therapeutic use , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Epinephrine/therapeutic use , Ventricular Fibrillation
7.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 28(6): 2493-2500, 2024 Mar.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38567609

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.


Anesthetics, Local , Pharyngitis , Humans , Airway Extubation/adverse effects , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use , Cough/etiology , Cough/complications , Hoarseness/epidemiology , Hoarseness/etiology , Hoarseness/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Pharyngitis/epidemiology , Pharyngitis/etiology , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Prospective Studies
8.
Int J Pharm Compd ; 28(2): 111-116, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38604147

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.


Ketamine , Pain Management , Gabapentin , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Tetracaine , Anesthetics, Local
9.
Oncol Rep ; 51(5)2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38606513

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.


Brain Neoplasms , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm , Glioblastoma , Lidocaine , Humans , Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating/pharmacology , Brain Neoplasms/drug therapy , Brain Neoplasms/genetics , Brain Neoplasms/metabolism , Cell Line, Tumor , Cell Movement , Glioblastoma/drug therapy , Glioblastoma/genetics , Glioblastoma/metabolism , Lidocaine/pharmacology , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Signal Transduction , Temozolomide/therapeutic use
10.
Ann Plast Surg ; 92(5): 508-513, 2024 May 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38685490

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.


Anatomic Landmarks , Botulinum Toxins, Type A , Forehead , Nerve Block , Skin Aging , Humans , Botulinum Toxins, Type A/administration & dosage , Botulinum Toxins, Type A/therapeutic use , Forehead/innervation , Female , Nerve Block/methods , Middle Aged , Male , Skin Aging/drug effects , Adult , Neuromuscular Agents/administration & dosage , Neuromuscular Agents/therapeutic use , Pain Measurement , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use
12.
Pain Physician ; 27(3): E317-E326, 2024 Mar.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38506678

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.


Analgesics, Opioid , Lidocaine , Humans , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Abdomen/surgery , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use , Pain
13.
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol ; 90(3): 101403, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38442640

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


Anesthetics, Local , Hypotension, Controlled , Labetalol , Lidocaine , Tympanoplasty , Humans , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Female , Male , Labetalol/therapeutic use , Labetalol/administration & dosage , Adult , Tympanoplasty/methods , Hypotension, Controlled/methods , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Treatment Outcome , Hemodynamics/drug effects , Adolescent , Pain Measurement
14.
Burns ; 50(5): 1053-1061, 2024 Jun.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38472004

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) in burn patients is reported in the literature to be as high as 80%1. Given the complexity of NP in burn patients and the wide range of treatments available, a systematic review of the literature is warranted to summarize our current understanding of management and treatment of NP in this population. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The following databases were queried to identify relevant articles: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science. The main outcome measures were incidence and management of NP. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for NP. RESULTS: Included articles presented findings from 11 different countries, capturing outcomes for 4366 patients. Risk factors for neuropathic pain in burn patients were identified, including older age, alcohol and substance abuse, current daily smoking, greater % total body surface area burns (TBSA), and longer hospitalizations. Pharmacologic treatments included gabapentin/pregabalin (n = 7), ascorbic acid (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1). Overall, the studies showed varied results regarding the efficacy of pharmacological treatments. While certain studies demonstrated gabapentanoids to be effective in reducing neuropathic symptoms, others found conflicting results. With regards to non-pharmacologic treatments, electroconvulsive therapy (n = 1), electropuncture (n = 1), nerve release/reconstruction (n = 2), and somatosensory feedback rehabilitation (n = 1) were used and demonstrated promise in reducing pain intensity and improving functionality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite NP afflicting the majority of burn patients long after their injury, this systematic review demonstrates insufficient evidence on the pathophysiology, outcomes, and risk factors in NP, as well as the efficacy of various therapies. Future prospective and randomized studies evaluating the etiology of these factors can substantially improve our treatment strategies. This can allow for the development of well-delineated and evidence-based protocols in NP management in hopes of improving quality of life and both psychological and physical function in burn patients.


Analgesics , Burns , Gabapentin , Neuralgia , Humans , Burns/complications , Burns/therapy , Neuralgia/etiology , Neuralgia/therapy , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Gabapentin/therapeutic use , Risk Factors , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use , Pain Management/methods , Ascorbic Acid/therapeutic use , Pregabalin/therapeutic use , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Age Factors , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Substance-Related Disorders/complications , Substance-Related Disorders/therapy , Body Surface Area
15.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 41(3): 161-173, 2024 Mar 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38298101

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.


Colorectal Surgery , Laparoscopy , Pain, Postoperative , Female , Humans , Male , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Colorectal Surgery/adverse effects , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Pain, Postoperative/diagnosis , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Pain, Postoperative/etiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
16.
Ann Med ; 56(1): 2315229, 2024 12.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38346397

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.


Colorectal Surgery , Laparoscopy , Humans , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Anesthetics, Local/adverse effects , Colorectal Surgery/adverse effects , Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Pain, Postoperative/etiology , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Double-Blind Method , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Morphine/therapeutic use
18.
Clin Rehabil ; 38(5): 600-611, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38361324

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.


Bursitis , Shoulder Joint , Humans , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , Shoulder Pain/diagnosis , Shoulder Pain/etiology , Shoulder Pain/therapy , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Bursitis/therapy , Range of Motion, Articular , Steroids , Treatment Outcome
19.
Arab J Gastroenterol ; 25(2): 165-169, 2024 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38403495

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


Anesthetics, Local , Hemorrhoids , Lidocaine , Pain Measurement , Pain, Postoperative , Sclerotherapy , Humans , Hemorrhoids/therapy , Hemorrhoids/surgery , Lidocaine/administration & dosage , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Sclerotherapy/methods , Sclerotherapy/adverse effects , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Pain, Postoperative/etiology , Male , Ligation/methods , Female , Middle Aged , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Adult , Sclerosing Solutions/administration & dosage , Sclerosing Solutions/therapeutic use , Polidocanol/administration & dosage , Polidocanol/therapeutic use , Combined Modality Therapy , Aged
20.
Curr Opin Urol ; 34(2): 58-63, 2024 Mar 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38168016

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.


Botulinum Toxins, Type A , Cystitis, Interstitial , Humans , Cystitis, Interstitial/drug therapy , Quality of Life , Administration, Intravesical , Botulinum Toxins, Type A/therapeutic use , Lidocaine/therapeutic use
...