Systemic Lidocaine Fails to Improve Postoperative Pain, But Reduces Time to Discharge Readiness in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sterilization in Day-Case Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Exploring the factors affecting the readiness for hospital discharge after total knee arthroplasty: A structural equation model approach

AIM

To investigate the factors that influence readiness for hospital discharge in Chinese patients after total knee arthroplasty and to identify priorities for nursing interventions.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

From January to August 2022, data were collected from 339 patients at two tertiary A-level hospitals in Jinan, Shandong Province. SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.3 software were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Results from multiple linear regression showed that patients' age, residence status, education level, knee pain during sleep, quality of discharge teaching, self-efficacy for rehabilitation, pain control knowledge, and social support were factors influencing their readiness for hospital discharge. The results of the structural equation model had shown that there were also indirect effects of the education level, knee pain during sleep, quality of discharge teaching, and pain control knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Patients' readiness for hospital discharge needs further improvement, hence physicians and nurses should judiciously allocate medical resources and concentrate their efforts on high-risk groups characterized by low readiness for hospital discharge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE

This study underscores the importance of physicians and nurses prioritizing key factors such as age, residency status, education level, and social support in total knee arthroplasty patients to enhance their readiness for hospital discharge. By implementing targeted discharge planning, effective pain management, and comprehensive rehabilitation education, healthcare providers can improve patient outcomes.

IMPACT

This study identified key factors influencing readiness for hospital discharge in total knee arthroplasty patients, guiding targeted nursing interventions to improve post-operative care.

REPORTING METHOD

STROBE.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The participants recruited for this study were actively engaged in the data collection process.

The Effect of Preoperative Combined with Intravenous Lidocaine and Ketamine vs. Intravenous Ketamine on Pediatric Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ketamine is widely used in pediatric sedation. New studies have recommended combination therapy to reduce the side effects of ketamine.

Objectives

This study investigated the effect of adding intravenous (IV) lidocaine to ketamine on hemodynamic parameters, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time of children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This triple-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in Isfahan, Iran (2021). One hundred twenty children between the ages of 1 and 6 were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups. The intervention group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV lidocaine and 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine, and the placebo group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine and placebo 2 minutes before entering the endoscopic room. Patients in both groups were sedated with 1.0 mg/kg of propofol, 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam, and 2.0 ug/kg of fentanyl for the procedure. The pulse rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded 1 minute before injection and every 5 minutes afterward.

Results

The mean (SD) ages of the intervention and control groups were 3.4 (1.5) and 3.4 (1.7), respectively. The mean difference in hemodynamic parameters between the 2 groups was insignificant during the investigation (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found regarding endoscopist satisfaction scores and length of recovery room stay (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Adding low-dose IV lidocaine to ketamine for pediatric sedation does not significantly affect the hemodynamic status, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time.

Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Pain Relief in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department.

METHODS

The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were explored from 1st January 2000 to 30th March 2021 and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine with a control group of standard analgesics were included.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs including 1,351 patients were included. The cause of pain included abdominal pain, renal or biliary colic, traumatic pain, radicular low back pain, critical limb ischemia, migraine, tension-type headache, and pain of unknown origin. On pooled analysis, we found no statistically significant difference in pain scores between IV lidocaine and control group at 15 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.08, 0.61 I 2 = 81% p = 0.59), 30 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.03, 0.55 I 2 = 86% p = 0.55), 45 min (MD: 0.31 95% CI: -0.66, 1.29 I 2 = 66% p = 0.53), and 60 min (MD: 0.59 95% CI: -0.26, 1.44 I 2 = 75% p = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between the two groups (OR: 1.45 95% CI: 0.82, 2.56 I 2 = 41% p = 0.20), but on subgroup analysis, the need for rescue analgesics was significantly higher with IV lidocaine in studies on abdominal pain but not for musculoskeletal pain. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between the two study groups (OR: 1.09 95% CI: 0.59, 2.02 I 2 = 48% p = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative analgesic for pain control in the ED. However, its efficacy may not be higher than standard analgesics. Further RCTs with a large sample size are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.

The effect of systemic lidocaine on post-operative opioid consumption in ambulatory surgical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Ambulatory surgical procedures continue to grow in relevance to perioperative medicine. Clinical studies have examined the use of systemic lidocaine as a component of multimodal analgesia in various surgeries with mixed results. A quantitative review of the opioid-sparing effects of systemic lidocaine in ambulatory surgery has not been investigated. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of systemic lidocaine on postoperative analgesic outcomes in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.

Methods

We performed a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials in electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar) from their inception through February 2019. Included trials investigated the effects of intraoperative systemic lidocaine on postoperative analgesic outcomes, time to hospital discharge, and adverse events. Methodological quality was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and the level of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Data was combined in a meta-analysis using random-effects models.

Results

Five trials evaluating 297 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled effect of systemic lidocaine on postoperative opioid consumption at post-anesthesia care unit revealed a significant effect, weighted mean difference (95% CI) of − 4.23 (− 7.3 to 1.2, P = 0.007), and, at 24 h, weighted mean difference (95% CI) of − 1.91 (− 3.80 to − 0.03, P = 0.04) mg intravenous morphine equivalents. Postoperative pain control during both time intervals, postoperative nausea and vomiting reported at post anesthesia care unit, and time to hospital discharge were not different between groups. The incidence rate of self-limiting adverse events of the included studies is 0.007 (2/297).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that intraoperative systemic lidocaine as treatment for postoperative pain has a moderate opioid-sparing effect in post anesthesia care unit with limited effect at 24 h after ambulatory surgery. Moreover, the opioid-sparing effect did not impact the analgesia or the presence of nausea and vomiting immediately or 24 h after surgery. Clinical trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to further confirm the short-term analgesic benefit of systemic lidocaine following ambulatory surgery.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42019142229)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-021-00181-9.

Efficacy of systemic lidocaine on postoperative quality of recovery and analgesia after video-assisted thoracic surgery: A randomized controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intraoperative systemic lidocaine has become widely accepted as an adjunct to general anesthesia, associated with opioid-sparing and enhanced recovery. We hypothesized that perioperative systemic lidocaine improves postoperative pain and enhances the quality of recovery (QoR) in patients following video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS).

DESIGN

Prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

Single institution, tertiary university hospital.

PATIENTS

Adult patients aged 18 to 65 undergoing VATS were eligible for participation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients enrolled in this study were randomized to receive either system lidocaine (a bolus of 1.5 mg kg^-1, followed by an infusion of 2 mg kg^-1 h^-1 until the end of the surgical procedure) or identical volumes and rates of 0.9% saline.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was a global QoR-15 score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain score, cumulative opioid consumption, emergence time, length of PACU stay, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no difference in the global QoR-15 scores at 24 h postoperatively between the lidocaine and saline groups (median 117, IQR 113.5-124, vs. median 116, IQR 111-120, P = 0.067), with a median difference of 3 (95% CI 0 to 6, P = 0.507). Similarly, postoperative pain scores, postoperative cumulative opioid consumption, PACU length of stay, the occurrence of PONV, and patient satisfaction were comparable between the two groups (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our current findings do not support using perioperative systemic lidocaine as a potential strategy to improve postoperative pain and enhance QoR in patients undergoing VATS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier: ChiCTR1900027515).

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.

Acupuncture reduces the time from extubation to 'ready for discharge' from the post anaesthesia care unit: results from the randomised controlled AcuARP trial

Acupuncture may improve peri-operative care as it reduces post-operative symptoms, such as pain, nausea and vomiting, or sedation. This patient-assessor blinded, randomised trial in 75 women undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopy evaluated the effects of acupuncture combined with a standardised anaesthetic regimen (ACU) on post-anaesthetic recovery, when compared to acupressure (APU) or standard anaesthesia alone (CON). Main outcome measure was the time from extubation to ‘ready for discharge’ from recovery as assessed by validated questionnaires. The main outcome differed significantly between groups (p = 0.013). Median time to ready for discharge in the ACU group (30 (IQR: 24–41) min) was 16 minutes (35%) shorter than in the CON group (46 (36–64) min; p = 0.015) and tended to be shorter than in the APU group (43 (31–58) min; p = 0.08). Compared to CON (p = 0.029), median time to extubation was approximately 7 minutes shorter in both, the ACU and the APU group. No acupuncture or acupressure-related side-effects could be observed. A difference in time to recovery of 16 minutes compared to standard alone can be considered clinically relevant. Thus, results of this study encourage the application of acupuncture in gynaecological laparoscopy as it improves post-anaesthetic recovery.

Factors associated with intravenous lidocaine in pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy - a retrospective, single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Due to its potential beneficial effects, intra- and postoperative application of intravenous lidocaine has become increasingly accepted over the last couple of years, e.g. in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgical procedures. Based on its beneficial properties, lidocaine was introduced to the standard of care for all pediatric laparoscopic procedures in our institution in mid-2016. In contrast to adult care, scarce data is available regarding the use of perioperative intravenous lidocaine administration in children undergoing laparoscopic procedures, such as an appendectomy.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at the University Children's Hospital Zurich in 2016. Perioperative data, as recorded in the electronic patient data management system, were evaluated for any signs of systemic lidocaine toxicity (neurological and cardiovascular), behavioral deterioration, as well as for hemodynamic instability. Additionally, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, administration of pain rescue medication, time to hospital discharge and to first bowel movement, as well as any postoperative complications were recorded. Starting on 01/07/2016, all patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery received intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg body weight (BW) bolus after induction of anesthesia followed by continuous infusion of 1.5 mg/kgBW/h). These patients were then compared to children without lidocaine administration who had undergone laparoscopic appendectomy between 01/01/2016 and 30/06/2016.

RESULTS

Data of 116 patients was analyzed. Of these, 60 patients received lidocaine. No signs of systemic toxicity, neurologic impairment or circulatory disturbances were noted in any of these patients. A (non-significant) difference in the incidence of emergence delirium was observed (0 cases in the lidocaine group vs. 4 cases in the control group, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis did not reveal any adverse effects in pediatric patients receiving intravenous lidocaine for laparoscopic appendectomy under general anesthesia. However, further trials investigating beneficial effects as well as pharmacokinetic properties of intravenous lidocaine in children are required.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults

BACKGROUND

The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.

[Systemic effects of amide-linked local anesthetics : Old drugs, new magic bullets?]

Besides the well-known analgesic effects of amide-linked local anesthetics exerted via the inhibition of the voltage-gated sodium channel, these substances also possess a certain number of properties, which bear the potential to positively influence the outcome after surgery. The results of several experimental as well as clinical studies suggest the possibility of an enhanced recovery after surgery, reduction in the incidence of chronic pain, preservation of endothelial barrier function during acute lung injury and the prevention of metastasis of solid tumors by systemic effects of local anesthetic administration. Mechanistic studies were able to identify several "new targets", such as the inhibition of spinal glycine transporters or of inflammatory signaling as induced by tumor necrosis factor alpha. Further elucidation of these mechanistic pathways as well as the translation of these promising experimental results into clinical practice is a crucial component of research activities in the field of anesthesia.