Intravenous lidocaine improves postoperative cognition in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction(POCD) in laparoscopic surgery should not be overlooked. Intravenous lidocaine can reduce perioperative inflammatory response in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, while the effect of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery has not been well studied. We investigated whether intraoperative lidocaine improves postoperative cognitive function after laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized double blinded controlled trial to investigate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on rapid postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous lidocaine or saline. The primary outcome was cognitive dysfunction defined by a decrease from pre- to postoperative ≥ 2 of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, at the 3rd and the 7th postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were the MMSE raw score and parameters of the patients' postoperative recovery such as agitation and length of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), length of hospital stay, markers of inflammation (white blood cell count and CRP), and incidence of complications. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients in the lidocaine group and 77 patients in the control group completed the trial. The rate of cognitive dysfunction was lower in the lidocaine group than that in the control group, both at the 3rd (18.57% vs. 63.64% for each group respectively; RR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.19-0.32; p < 0.0001) and at the 7th postoperative day (12.33% vs. 53.25% for each group respectively; RR = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.22-0.35; P < 0.001). The postoperative MMSE scores were also higher in the lidocaine group than in the control group both at the 3rd (median 25 vs. 24 respectively) and at the 7th postoperative day (26 vs. 24 respectively). Also, patients in the lidocaine group displayed a lower white blood cell count than the control group at the 1st postoperative day (8.5 ± 2.7 vs. 10.4 ± 3.3; p < 0. 001). No differences were evidenced for the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative intravenous lidocaine can significantly improve postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (16/1/2022, registration number: ChiCTR2200055683).

Dexamethasone versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone is an antiemetic alternative to ondansetron. We aimed to compare the effects of dexamethasone and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2014) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included PONV in the early postoperative stage (0-6 h), PONV in the late postoperative stage (6-24 h), and the postoperative anti-emetics used at both stages. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95 % CIs using random- and fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Seven trials involving 608 patients were included in this meta-analysis, which found that dexamethasone had a comparable effectiveness in preventing PONV (RR, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.13; P = 0.39) with that of ondansetron within 24 h of laparoscopic surgery, with no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I(2) = 0 %; P = 0.71). In the early postoperative stage (0-6 h), ondansetron was better at decreasing PONV than dexamethasone (RR, 1.71; 95 % CI, 1.05-2.77; P = 0.03), while in the late postoperative stage (6-24 h), dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV than ondansetron (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI, 0.27-0.93; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the postoperative anti-emetics used (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone was as effective and as safe as ondansetron in preventing PONV. Dexamethasone should be encouraged as an alternative to ondansetron for preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus in parturients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) in parturients. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2021) were searched for identification of randomized placebo-controlled trials in which PIEB was applied in parturients. The outcomes were the effect of analgesia, satisfaction score, mode of delivery, duration of labor, neonatal condition, and adverse events. The pooled odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- and fixed-effects models. RESULTS: PIEB was found to be associated with decreased total consumption of ropivacaine (WMD = -15.83, 95% CI: -19.06 to -12.60, P < .00001; I2 = 61%; P for heterogeneity = .04), total consumption of sufentanil (WMD = -4.93, 95% CI: -6.87 to 2.98, P < .00001; I2 = 68%; P for heterogeneity = .05), numbers of patients who require patient-controlled epidural analgesia bolus (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.51, P < .0001; I2 = 65%; P for heterogeneity = .01), the number of attempts (WMD = -4.12, 95% CI: -7.21 to -1.04, P = .009; I2 = 100%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), rate of breakthrough pain (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.80, P = .005; I2 = 47%; P for heterogeneity = .09). Eight studies focus on the duration of analgesia. After by meta-analysis, we found that the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 30 minutes, 2 hours, 4 hours, and 5 hours in PIEB group was significantly lower when compared with control group, (WMD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.04, P = .006; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .64), (WMD = -0.79, 95% CI: -1.32 to 0.25, P = .004; I2 = 97%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), (WMD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.08 to -0.91, P < .00001; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .67), (WMD = -1.81, 95% CI: -3.23 to -0.39, P = .01; I2 = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), respectively. Nineteen studies discussed the mode of delivery between 2 groups. The results suggest that the rate of normal delivery is significantly higher in PIEB group compared with control group (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.08-1.75, P = .01). The time of first and second stage of labor are significantly shorter in PIEB group compared with control group, the result is (WMD = -10.52, 95% CI: -14.74 to 4.76, P < .00001; I2 = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .86), (WMD = -1.48, 95% CI: -2.26 to -0.69, P = .0002; I2 = 35%; P for heterogeneity = .10), respectively. Thirteen studies concerned the satisfaction score of patients. The satisfaction score of patients in the PIEB group was significantly higher when compared with control group (WMD = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.42-1.39, P = .0003; I2 = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001). The Apgar score at 1, 5 minutes in PIEB group are significantly higher (WMD = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13 P = .007; I2 = 55%; P for heterogeneity = .04), (WMD = -0.08, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.05, P < .00001; I2 = 21%; P for heterogeneity = .27), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PIEB is a good alternative for labor analgesia with better analgesic effect, maternal and infant outcome.

Caudal dexmedetomidine in pediatric caudal anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of caudal dexmedetomidine in pediatric caudal anesthesia (CA). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embased, and Cochrane Library (from inception to June 2019) for eligible studies. The primary outcomes were the time to first analgesia, time of postoperative eye opening, intraoperative endtidal sevoflurane concentration, and postoperative sedation score. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs using random- or fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen trials involving 793 patients were found. Meta-analysis showed that the time to first rescue pain medication and the time from the end of anesthesia to eye opening in the CA+dexmedetomidine group were significantly longer than in the CA group (P < .00001). The intraoperative end-tidal sevoflurane concentration in the CA+dexmedetomidine group was significantly decreased (P < .00001). Dexmedetomidine appeared to increase the rate of bradycardia in the CA+dexmedetomidine group (P = .04). Additionally, the sedation score in the CA+ dexmedetomidine group was significantly higher at 2 hours after the operation compared with the CA group (P < .00001 at 2 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Caudally administered dexmedetomidine is a good alternative for prolonging postoperative analgesia with less pain, decreased intraoperative end-tidal sevoflurane concentration, and full postoperative sedation.

Comparison of Postoperative Events between Spinal Anesthesia and General Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is usually carried out under general anesthesia. There were a few studies which have found spinal anesthesia as a safe alternative. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative events between spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to January 2016) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting and urine retention 24 hours postoperatively. We calculated pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence interval using random- or fixed-effects models. Results. Eight trials involving 723 patients were listed. Meta-analysis showed that patients in spinal anesthesia groups have lower visual analogue scale score 24 hours postoperatively. There were significant decreases in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in spinal anesthesia group when compared with general anesthesia group (odds ratios: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.76; P = 0.006) with heterogeneity accepted (I (2) = 13%; P = 0.33), while urine retention rate was increased in patients with spinal anesthesia (odds ratios: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.24-19.71; P = 0.02) without any heterogeneity (I (2) = 0%; P = 0.98). Conclusions. Spinal anesthesia may be associated with less postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with general anesthesia.