Intravenous lidocaine infusion as a component of multimodal analgesia for colorectal surgery-measurement of plasma levels

The effect of continuous bilateral parasternal block with lidocaine on patient-controlled analgesia opioid requirement and recovery after open heart surgery: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Background

We hypothesised that a continuous 72-h bilateral parasternal infusion of lidocaine at 2×35 mg h-1 would decrease pain and the inflammatory response after sternotomy for open heart surgery, subsequently improving quality of recovery.

Methods

We randomly allocated 45 participants to a 72-h bilateral parasternal infusion of lidocaine or saline commencing after wound closure. The primary outcome was the cumulative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine consumption at 72 h. Secondary outcomes included total morphine requirement, pain, peak expiratory flow, and serum interleukin-6 concentration. In addition, we used an eHealth platform for a 3-month follow-up of pain, analgesic use, and Quality of Recovery-15 scores.

Results

The 72-h PCA morphine requirement was significantly lower in the lidocaine than the saline group (10 mg [inter-quartile range: 5-19 mg] and 28.2 mg [inter-quartile range: 16-42.5 mg], respectively; P=0.014). The total morphine requirement (including morphine administered before the start of PCA) was significantly lower at 24, 48, and 72 h. Pain was well controlled with no difference in pain scores between treatment groups. The peak expiratory flow was lower in the lidocaine group at 72 h. Interleukin-6 concentrations showed no difference at 24, 48, or 72 h. Quality of Recovery-15 scores did not differ between treatment groups at any time during the 3-month follow-up.

Conclusions

After sternotomy for open heart surgery, a 72-h bilateral parasternal lidocaine infusion significantly decreased PCA and total morphine requirement. However, neither signs of decreased inflammatory response nor an improvement in recovery was seen.

Clinical trial registration

EudraCT number 2018-004672-35.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Lidocaine in Adults: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The establishment of optimal dosing regimens for intravenous (IV) lidocaine in the perioperative setting, aiming to balance effective pain relief with minimisation of potential side effects, is a topic of ongoing debate. This discussion stems from the significant variability in lidocaine's pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and its relatively narrow safety margin. Population pharmacokinetic (popPK) modelling has emerged as a valuable tool for understanding the factors contributing to this observed variability in drug kinetics.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review compiles the existing knowledge on lidocaine's PK properties and published popPK models, with a focus on significant covariates.

METHODS

A systematic search on Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, and EMBASE was performed from inception to June 2023. Original clinical studies that administered IV lidocaine to adults and performed PK analyses using a nonlinear mixed effects modelling approach were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed by compliance with the Clinical Pharmacokinetics (ClinPK) statement checklist.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included, which involved a diverse adult population, including both volunteers and patients with various comorbidities. Lidocaine PK was primarily characterised by a two- or three-compartment model. The volume of distribution at steady state ranged from 66 to 194 L, and the total clearance ranged from 22 to 49 L/h. Despite adjusting for significant covariates like heart failure status, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, duration of lidocaine infusion, and body weight, each study revealed substantial variability in PK parameters. The potential impact of hepatic or renal function biomarkers on these PK parameters calls for further investigation. Incomplete reporting of key aspects of developed models may hinder the models' reliability and clinical application.

CONCLUSION

The findings emphasise the importance of tailoring drug dosage to ensure the safe and effective use of intravenous lidocaine. Optimal design methodologies may be incorporated for a more efficient identification of important covariates. Utilising contemporary model evaluation methods like visual predictive checks and bootstrapping would enhance the robustness of popPK models and the reliability of their predictions. This comprehensive review advances our understanding of lidocaine's pharmacokinetics and lays the groundwork for further research in this critical area of perioperative pain management. Review protocol registered on 25 August 2023 in PROSPERO (CRD42023441113). This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme, the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (FRGS/1/2020/SKK01/UM/02/2).

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 amide‑based local anesthetic, has been found to have a significant anticancer effect. It has been reported that aberrant hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/mesenchymal‑epithelial 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 TMZ‑resistant 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 TMZ‑resistant 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 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.

Intraoperative intravenous infusion of lidocaine increases total and small vessel densities of sublingual microcirculation: a randomized prospective pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Multiple organ failure can occur as a result of postoperative complications. Research has indicated that the underlying mechanism of organ dysfunction is a microcirculation disorder. Because of its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, lidocaine has the potential to improve microvascular blood flow. This study was performed to assess the effect of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on the microcirculation and determine the incidence of postoperative complications.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized double-blind pilot study, 12 patients scheduled for abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to receive an intraoperative infusion of either 1% lidocaine or the same volume of 0.9% sodium chloride solution. The microcirculation was monitored using sidestream dark-field imaging and the vascular occlusion test combined with near-infrared spectroscopy.

RESULTS

Lidocaine significantly increased the total vascular density and small vessel density after 2 hours of infusion, with preservation of 99% to 100% of the capillary perfusion in both groups. No patients developed organ failure.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in vessel density may be beneficial in major abdominal surgeries because it is associated with better tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. However, this finding requires further investigation in patients with increased surgical risk. Overall, this study indicates that lidocaine has potential to improve microvascular perfusion.Research Registry number: 9549 (https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/650ffd27b3f547002bd7635f/).

Serum lidocaine (lignocaine) concentrations during prolonged perioperative infusion in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Perioperative lidocaine (lignocaine) infusions are being employed with increasing frequency. The determinants of systemic lidocaine concentrations during prolonged administration are unclear. In the Long-term Outcomes after Lidocaine Infusions for PostOperative Pain (LOLIPOP) pilot trial, the impact of infusion duration and body size metrics on serum lidocaine concentrations was examined with regression models in 48 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Lidocaine was delivered as an intravenous bolus (1.5 mg/kg) and infusion (2 mg/kg per h) intraoperatively, followed by a 12-h subcutaneous infusion (1.33 mg/kg per h) postoperatively. Dosing was based on total body weight. Wound infiltration with other long-acting local anaesthetics was permitted. Protein binding and pharmacogenomic data were also collected. Lidocaine concentrations (median (interquartile range) (range)) during prolonged administration were in the safe and potentially therapeutic range: post-anaesthesia care unit 2.16 (1.73-2.82) (1.12-6.06) µg/ml; ward 1.41 (1.22-1.75) (0.64-2.81) µg/ml. Concentrations increased non-linearly during the early intravenous phase of administration (mean rise 1.21 µg/ml per hour of infusion, P = 0.007) but reached a pseudo steady-state during the later subcutaneous phase. Higher dose rates received per kilogram of lean (P = 0.004), adjusted (P = 0.006) and ideal body weight (P = 0.009) were associated with higher steady-state concentrations. The lidocaine free fraction was unaffected by the presence of ropivacaine, and phenotypes linked to slow metabolism were infrequent. Serum lidocaine concentrations reached a pseudo steady-state during a 12-h postoperative infusion. Greater precision in steady-state concentrations can be achieved by dosing on lean body weight versus adjusted or ideal body weight (equivalent lean body weight doses: intravenous bolus 2.5 mg/kg; intravenous infusion 3.33 mg/kg per h; subcutaneous infusion 2.22 mg/kg per h.

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).

A protocol for a pilot study to assess the feasibility of a randomised clinical trial of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on colorectal cancer outcome after surgery (FLICOR trial)

Background

Cancer recurrence after curative cancer surgery significantly impacts patients and healthcare services. Before surgery, a small number of clinically undetectable circulating tumour cells are often present. The surgical stress response promotes the distribution and proliferation of circulating tumour cells leading to cancer recurrence and metastasis. Preclinical evidence suggests that lidocaine may exert 'anti-cancer' effects and alleviate pro-metastatic environments. The Feasibility Study of Lidocaine Infusion During Bowel Cancer Surgery for Cancer Outcome (FLICOR) will assess the feasibility of conducting a clinical trial on perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion for postoperative colorectal cancer outcomes.

Methods

The study is a double-blinded, randomised, controlled pilot study for a full trial comparing intravenous lidocaine administration at 1.5 mg kg^-1 bolus followed by 1.5 mg kg^-1 h^-1 infusion for 24 h with placebo in patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopy or robotic) colorectal cancer surgery. The feasibility of data collection instruments will be measured, including those for future economic evaluation and clinical and patient-reported outcomes. For the exploratory outcomes, blood samples will be collected before and after surgery on days 0, 1, and 3. Recruitment is planned for two NHS Trusts over 6 months with a 12-month follow-up. Patients and clinicians will be asked for their feedback on the study process.

Dissemination plan

Study data will be disseminated to trial participants, the public, and academic communities. The work will be presented at national and international conferences to stimulate interest and enthusiasm for centres to participate in the future definitive trial. This research will also be published in peer-reviewed open-access journals.

Clinical trial registration

ISRCTN29594895 (ISRCTN), NCT05250791 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Protocol version number and date

3.0, February 8, 2023.

Efficacy of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We designed this study to evaluate the impact of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

In total, 98 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included and randomized. In the experimental group, intravenous lidocaine (bolus 1.5 mg/kg and continuous infusion 2 mg/kg/h) was administered intraoperatively additionally to the standard analgesia, whereas the control group received a matching placebo. Blinding existed at the level of both the patient and the investigator.

RESULTS

Our study failed to confirm any benefit in opioid consumption, during the postoperative period. Lidocaine resulted to reduced intraoperative systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure. Lidocaine administration did not change postoperative pain scores or the incidence of shoulder pain, at any time endpoint. Moreover, we did not identify any difference in terms of postoperative sedation levels and nausea rates.

CONCLUSION

Overall, lidocaine did not have any effect on postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Analgesic efficacy of systemic lidocaine using lean body mass based dosing regime versus placebo in bariatric surgery: a prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, single centre study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine is used as an adjuvant analgesic agent in perioperative settings. It has been investigated in various patient populations and surgical interventions, but there are limited data on its efficacy, particularly for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Obese patients are at high risk of postoperative respiratory complications and can be expected to benefit from anaesthetic techniques that minimise opioid administration.

METHODS

We studied administration of lidocaine hydrochloride 1% i.v. to general anaesthesia at a dose of 1.5 mg kg^-1 (lean body mass×1.28) or placebo in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Subjects randomly assigned to each group were surveyed for 48 h after surgery for experienced pain (primary outcome), and administered opioids, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), resumption of bowel function, and length of hospital stay (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

We recruited and randomised 140 subjects to either the lidocaine or placebo group; 137 completed the study. Subjects with pain numeric rating scale (NRS) >3 within the first 4 h postoperatively were similar in both groups (proportion of any NRS >3 within first 4 h lidocaine group: 47/68 (69%) vs placebo group: 44/69 (63%), P=0.507; within first h P=0.177, within second h P=0.513, within third h P=0.145, within fourth h P=0.510). There was no difference in maximal pain score, opioid consumption, recovery of bowel function, incidence of PONV, or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine does not improve postoperative pain scores, analgesia, or any secondary outcomes in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03667001.

The Effect of Different Anesthetic Techniques on Proliferation, Apoptosis, and Gene Expression in Colon Cancer Cells: A Pilot In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is highly common and causes high mortality rates. Treatment for colorectal cancer is multidisciplinary, but in most cases the main option remains surgery. Intriguingly, in recent years, a number of studies have shown that a patient's postoperative outcome may be influenced by certain anesthetic drugs. Our main objective was to compare the effect of propofol-total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with sevoflurane anesthesia and to investigate the potential role of intravenous lidocaine on colon cancer cell functions. We tested the effects of serum from colorectal cancer patients undergoing TIVA vs. sevoflurane anesthesia with or without lidocaine on HCT 116 cell lines; on proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and cell cycles; and on cancer-related gene expressions.

METHODS

60 patients who were scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery were randomized into four different groups (two groups with TIVA and two groups with sevoflurane anesthesia with or without intravenous lidocaine). Blood samples were collected at the start and at the end of surgery. HCT 116 cells were exposed to the patients' serum.

RESULTS

15 patients were included in each of the study groups. We did not find any significant difference on cell viability or apoptosis between the study groups. However, there was an increased apoptosis in propofol groups, but this result was not statistically significant. A significant increase in the expression profile of the TP53 gene in the propofol group was registered (p = 0.029), while in the other study groups, no significant differences were reported. BCL2 and CASP3 expressions increased in the sevoflurane-lidocaine group without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, serum from patients receiving different anesthetic techniques did not significantly influence the apoptosis, migration, and cell cycle of HCT-116 colorectal carcinoma cells. Viability was also not significantly influenced by the anesthetic technique, except the sevoflurane-lidocaine group where it was increased. The gene expression of TP53 was significantly increased in the propofol group, which is consistent with the results of similar in vitro studies and may be one of the mechanisms by which anesthetic agents may influence the biology of cancer cells. Further studies that investigate the effects of propofol and lidocaine in different plasma concentrations on different colon cancer cell lines and assess the impacts of these findings on the clinical outcome are much needed.

Dose-response relationship between epidural bupivacaine dose and mortality risk after surgical resection of nonsmall-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Preclinical studies have shown that local anesthetics may modify the growth and invasion of cancer cells. However, few clinical studies have evaluated their impact on cancer outcomes after tumor resection.

METHODS

In this single-center cohort study, patients who underwent surgical resection of stage IA through IIIB nonsmall-cell lung cancer and used patient-controlled epidural analgesia from 2005 to 2015 were recruited and followed until May 2017. Data of the epidural bupivacaine dose for each patient were obtained from infusion pump machines. Proportional hazards regression models were used to analyze the associations between bupivacaine dose with postoperative cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 464 patients were analyzed. Among these patients, the mean bupivacaine dose was 352 mg (± standard deviation 74 mg). After adjusting for important clinical and pathological covariates, a significant dose-response relationship was observed between epidural bupivacaine dose and all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.008, 95% confidence interval: 1.001-1.016, p = 0.029). The association between bupivacaine dose and cancer recurrence were not significant (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.997-1.002, p = 0.771). Age, sex, body mass index, mean daily maximum pain score, and pathological perineural infiltration were independently associated with bupivacaine dose.

CONCLUSION

A dose-dependent association was found between epidural bupivacaine dose and long-term mortality among patients following surgical resection of nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Our findings do not support the hypothetical anticancer benefits of local anesthetics. More studies are needed to elucidate the role of local anesthetics in cancer treatment.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion With Thoracic Epidural for Perioperative Analgesia and Quality of Recovery After Surgery in Laparoscopic Left-Sided Colon and Sphincter-Sparing Rectal Resection Surgery

Background Protocols for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) have been constantly evolving, and the best method of managing perioperative pain, especially in laparoscopic surgeries, is still debatable. The primary goal of these protocols is to steer toward opioid-sparing analgesia. Intravenous lidocaine, which has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, may improve the overall recovery of patients. Objectives The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusion (IVL) with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in the management of perioperative pain and recovery in the laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery. Methods In this study, 37 patients were randomized to either the IVL group or the TEA group. IVL infusion was started before the surgical incision and stopped 30 minutes after transferring the patient to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, rescue analgesic doses, quality of recovery scores, time to discharge, and adverse events were recorded prospectively. Data were analyzed using two independent sample t-test and paired t-test, with p < 0.05 taken as statistically significant. Results The mean difference of overall NRS (numerical rating scale) pain scores in the ward was significantly higher in the IVL group as compared to the TEA group, which was 3.58 (2.29) vs 2.23 1.95) (p < 0.001). The IVL group required more mean rescue opioid boluses than the TEA group, which was 11.36 (8.684) vs 5.96 (6.215) (p < 0.001). However, both IVL and TEA groups had similar pain scores intraoperatively and in the PACU. Conclusions TEA provides better analgesia and decreased opioid requirements compared to intravenous lidocaine during the 24-hour period in the ward after laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery, although there was no difference in the quality of recovery between IVL and TEA groups.

Anesthesia and Oncology: Friend or Foe?

Cancer is a leading cause of death, and surgery is an important treatment modality. Laboratory research and retrospective studies have raised the suspicion that the choice of anesthetics for cancer surgery might affect the course of cancerous disease. The aim of this review is to provide a critical overview of the current state of knowledge. Inhalational anesthesia with volatiles or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol are the two most commonly used anesthetic techniques. Most data comparing volatile anesthetics with TIVA is from either in vitro or retrospective studies. Although conflicting, data shows a trend towards favoring propofol. Opioids are commonly used in anesthesia. Data on potential effects of opioids on growth and recurrence of cancer are scarce and conflicting. Preclinical studies have shown that opioids stimulate cancer growth through the µ-opioid receptor. Opioids also act as immunosuppressants and, therefore, have the potential to facilitate metastatic spread. However, the finding of an adverse effect of opioids on tumor growth and cancer recurrence by some retrospective studies has not been confirmed by prospective studies. Regional anesthesia has not been found to have a beneficial effect on the outcome of surgically treated cancer patients, but prospective studies are scarce. Local anesthetics might have a beneficial effect, as observed in animal and in vitro studies. However, prospective clinical studies strongly question such an effect. Blood products, which may be needed during extensive cancer surgery suppress the immune system, and data strongly suggest a negative impact on cancer recurrence. The potential effects of other commonly used anesthetic agents on the outcome of cancer patients have not been sufficiently studied for drawing valid conclusions. In conclusion, laboratory data and most retrospective studies suggest a potential advantage of TIVA over inhalational anesthesia on the outcome of surgical cancer patients, but prospective, randomized studies are missing. Given the state of weak scientific evidence, TIVA may be used as the preferred type of anesthesia unless there is an individual contraindication against it. Studies on the effects of other drugs frequently used in anesthesia are limited in number and quality, and have found conflicting results.

Anaesthesia for Hepatic Resection Surgery

This article will focus on the perioperative management of hepatic resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases (CLRMs) (the liver is the dominant metastatic site for CRC) within the context of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) paradigm. It discusses the epidemiology and outcomes along with the history of hepatic resection surgery and pertinent anatomy. The discussion of the preoperative phase includes patient selection, assessment of liver functional status, and new developments in prehabilitation. The intraoperative phase details developments in surgical and anesthetic techniques to minimize liver hemorrhage and reduce the risk of postoperative hepatic failure. Newer analgesic options are included. Management of potential complications is outlined in the postoperative section followed by a description of current evidence for ERAS and future directions.

Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine for Bowel Function Recovery After Major Colorectal Surgery: A Critical Appraisal Through Updated Meta-Analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, Certainty of Evidence, and Meta-Regression

Background

Intravenous infusion of lidocaine (IVF-Lido) during the perioperative period is an option to accelerate bowel function recovery after major colorectal surgery. However, previous meta-analyses have shown inconsistent conclusions. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported after the publication of a previous meta-analysis.

Aim

We conducted an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis to determine the effects of IVF-Lido on time to first flatus and defecation after major colorectal surgery.

Methods

We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2020 guideline. Only RCTs were included. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was chosen for appraisal. Meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis was carried out. The Doi plot was presented to evaluate publication bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology was executed to evaluate the certainty of evidence (CoE).

Results

Thirteen RCTs with 696 participants were enrolled. IVF-Lido significantly decreased the time to first flatus [mean difference (MD) = −6.03 h; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−8.80, −3.26)] and first defecation [MD = −10.49 h; 95% CI: (−15.58, −5.41)]. Trial sequential analysis yielded identical results and ampleness of required information sizes. No obviousness in publication bias was detected, and the CoE in GRADE was low in both outcomes. Meta-regression showed that a significantly shorter time to the first defecation was associated with studies with more improvement in pain control in comparison of two groups and better-improved analgesia in the control group.

Conclusions

We discretionarily suggest the use of IVF-Lido on postoperative bowel function recovery following major colorectal surgery. Beyond the analgesic effects, IVF-Lido might have additional benefits when postoperative pain relief has already been achieved. Considering the high heterogeneity in this updated meta-analysis, more RCTs are needed.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-7-0023/, INPLASY [202070023].

Opioid-free versus opioid-based anesthesia in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is associated with significantly reduced cumulative postoperative morphine consumption in comparison with opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). Whether OFA is feasible and may improve outcomes in pancreatic surgery remains unclear.

METHODS

Perioperative data from 77 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic resection were included and retrospectively reviewed. Patients received either an OBA with intraoperative remifentanil (n = 42) or an OFA (n = 35). OFA included a combination of continuous infusions of dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, and esketamine. In OBA, patients also received a single bolus of intrathecal morphine. All patients received intraoperative propofol, sevoflurane, dexamethasone, diclofenac, neuromuscular blockade. Postoperative pain management was achieved by continuous wound infiltration and patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was postoperative pain (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS). Opioid consumption within 48 h after extubation, length of stay, adverse events within 90 days, and 30-day mortality were included as secondary outcomes. Episodes of bradycardia and hypotension requiring rescue medication were considered as safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared to OBA, NRS (3 [2-4] vs 0 [0-2], P < 0.001) and opioid consumption (36 [24-52] vs 10 [2-24], P = 0.005) were both less in the OFA group. Length of stay was shorter by 4 days with OFA (14 [7-46] vs 10 [6-16], P < 0.001). OFA (P = 0.03), with postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = 0.0002) and delayed gastric emptying (P < 0.0001) were identified as only independent factors for length of stay. The comprehensive complication index (CCI) was the lowest with OFA (24.9 ± 25.5 vs 14.1 ± 23.4, P = 0.03). There were no differences in demographics, operative time, blood loss, bradycardia, vasopressors administration or time to extubation among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, OFA during pancreatic resection is feasible and independently associated with a better outcome, in particular pain outcomes. The lower rate of postoperative complications may justify future randomized trials to test the hypothesis that OFA may improve outcomes and shorten length of stay.

Evaluating the Safety of Continuous Infusion Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and the impact on opioid requirements and pain scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, single-arm analysis of adult patients who received intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain from January 2016 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if they received lidocaine for any indication other than pain or if lidocaine was only given intraoperatively. The primary outcome of this analysis was to determine the incidence of adverse effects (AEs) and the reason for discontinuation of lidocaine. Secondary outcomes included median daily pain scores (visual analog scale and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool) and opioid consumption (daily morphine milligram equivalents) 24 hours before infusion and during day 1.

RESULTS

A total of 452 patients were evaluated of which 298 (65.9%) patients met inclusion criteria. Of the 154 patients excluded, 153 did not receive lidocaine postoperatively. The median duration of infusion was 34 [20:48] hours with a median initial and maintenance rate of 1 mg/kg/h dosed on ideal body weight. In our analysis, 174 (58.4%) patients had a documented AE during infusion and 38 (12.8%) had lidocaine discontinued because of an AE. The most common AE was nausea in 62 (20.8%) patients and the most common reason for discontinuation was confusion in 8 (2.7%) patients. Daily morphine milligram equivalents (P<0.001) and visual analog scale (P<0.001) significantly decreased when comparing 24 hours before infusion and day 1.

CONCLUSION

Although a majority of patients receiving lidocaine for postoperative pain experienced an AE, this did not result in discontinuation in most patients.

Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Techniques using local anaesthetics provide high-quality analgesia, while the anti-inflammatory properties of these drugs may represent an additional advantage. Perioperative intravenous lidocaine has shown positive effects not only on postoperative pain but also on bowel function and duration of hospital stay, due to its analgesic, anti-inflammatory and opioid-sparing effects. However, these potential benefits are not well established in patients undergoing resection with colorectal cancer. This research aims to determine the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed and WanFang Data databases were electronically retrieved to include the randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative intravenous lidocaine with placebo infusion in patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer before August 2021. Registers of clinical trials, potential grey literature and abstracts from conferences will also be searched. Two reviewers will screen literature, extract data and assess risk of bias of studies included independently. The primary outcome variable will be long-term survival outcome, tumour recurrence and metastasis rate, and restoration of intestinal function. The secondary outcome variables will consist of the severity of postoperative pain at 4, 12, 24 and 48 hours after surgery, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and the length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and Stata V.12.0. subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Because the data used for this systematic review will be exclusively extracted from published studies, ethical approval and informed consent of patients will not be required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and shared on social media platforms.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020216232.

Perioperative Intravenous Lidocaine and Metastatic Cancer Recurrence - A Narrative Review

Cancer is a major global health problem and the second leading cause of death worldwide. When detected early, surgery provides a potentially curative intervention for many solid organ tumours. Unfortunately, cancer frequently recurs postoperatively. Evidence from laboratory and retrospective clinical studies suggests that the choice of anaesthetic and analgesic agents used perioperatively may influence the activity of residual cancer cells and thus affect subsequent recurrence risk. The amide local anaesthetic lidocaine has a well-established role in perioperative therapeutics, whether used systemically as an analgesic agent or in the provision of regional anaesthesia. Under laboratory conditions, lidocaine has been shown to inhibit cancer cell behaviour and exerts beneficial effects on components of the inflammatory and immune responses which are known to affect cancer biology. These findings raise the possibility that lidocaine administered perioperatively as a safe and inexpensive intravenous infusion may provide significant benefits in terms of long term cancer outcomes. However, despite the volume of promising laboratory data, robust prospective clinical evidence supporting beneficial anti-cancer effects of perioperative lidocaine treatment is lacking, although trials are planned to address this. This review provides a state of the art summary of the current knowledge base and recent advances regarding perioperative lidocaine therapy, its biological effects and influence on postoperative cancer outcomes.

Focused ultrasound enhances the anesthetic effects of topical lidocaine in rats

BACKGROUND

High-intensity ultrasound has been used to induce acoustic cavitation in the skin and subsequently enhances skin permeability to deliver hydrophobic topical medications including lidocaine. In contrast, instead of changing skin permeability, pulsed application of low-intensity focused ultrasound (FUS) has shown to non-invasively and temporarily disrupt drug-plasma protein binding, thus has potential to enhance the anesthetic effects of hydrophilic lidocaine hydrochloride through unbinding it from serum/interstitial α1-acid glycoprotein (AAG).

METHODS

FUS, operating at fundamental frequency of 500 kHz, was applied pulse-mode (55-ms pulse duration, 4-Hz pulse repetition frequency) at a spatial-peak pulse-average intensity of 5 W/cm2. In vitro equilibrium dialysis was performed to measure the unbound concentration of lidocaine (lidocaine hydrochloride) from dialysis cassettes, one located at the sonication focus and the other outside the sonication path, all immersed in phosphate-buffered saline solution containing both lidocaine (10 µg/mL) and human AAG (5 mg/mL). In subsequent animal experiments (Sprague-Dawley rats, n = 10), somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP), elicited by electrical stimulations to the unilateral hind leg, was measured under three experimental conditions-applications of FUS to the unilateral thigh area at the site of administered topical lidocaine, FUS only, and lidocaine only. Skin temperature was measured before and after sonication. Passive cavitation detection was also performed during sonication to evaluate the presence of FUS-induced cavitation.

RESULTS

Sonication increased the unbound lidocaine concentration (8.7 ± 3.3 %) from the dialysis cassette, compared to that measured outside the sonication path (P < 0.001). Application of FUS alone did not alter the SSEP while administration of lidocaine reduced its P23 component (i.e., a positive peak at 23 ms latency). The FUS combined with lidocaine resulted in a further reduction of the P23 component (in a range of 21.8 - 23.4 ms after the electrical stimulations; F(2,27) = 3.2 - 4.0, P < 0.05), indicative of the enhanced anesthetic effect of the lidocaine. Administration of FUS neither induced cavitation nor altered skin conductance or temperature, suggesting that skin permeability was unaffected.

CONCLUSIONS

Unbinding lidocaine from the plasma proteins by exposure to non-thermal low-intensity ultrasound is attributed as the main mechanism behind the observation.

Pre-procedure intravenous lidocaine administration on propofol consumption for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure is generally performed in patients with high comorbidity. We aimed to reduce the consumption of propofol by adding lidocaine before ERCP.

METHODS

Eighty ERCP patients with ASA I-III, aged between 45-75 years, were randomly divided into two groups. Lidocaine group (group L, n = 40), received 1-mg midazolam, 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. The control group (group C, n = 40) received 1-mg midazolam, saline in the same volume as the lidocaine group, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. Propofol was administered with intermittent bolus doses. Propofol consumption, oropharyngeal reflex, recovery time, endoscopist satisfaction, ketamine need, and side-effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Propofol consumption during the procedure was statistically lower in group L than in the control group (157.25 ± 39.16 mg vs 228.75 ± 64.62 mg respectively, P < 0.001). Additionally, recovery time was statistically faster in group L compared with the control group (7.78 ± 3.95 min vs 11.92 ± 3.24 min respectively, P < 0.001). The oropharyngeal reflex was less in group L than control group (6/40 vs 15/40 respectively, P = 0.042). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding visual analogue scale scores and endoscopist satisfaction (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the use of intravenous lidocaine before the ERCP procedure as it reduces propofol consumption, recovery times, and oropharyngeal reflex.

Perioperative Pain Management and Opioid Stewardship: A Practical Guide

Surgical procedures are key drivers of pain development and opioid utilization globally. Various organizations have generated guidance on postoperative pain management, enhanced recovery strategies, multimodal analgesic and anesthetic techniques, and postoperative opioid prescribing. Still, comprehensive integration of these recommendations into standard practice at the institutional level remains elusive, and persistent postoperative pain and opioid use pose significant societal burdens. The multitude of guidance publications, many different healthcare providers involved in executing them, evolution of surgical technique, and complexities of perioperative care transitions all represent challenges to process improvement. This review seeks to summarize and integrate key recommendations into a "roadmap" for institutional adoption of perioperative analgesic and opioid optimization strategies. We present a brief review of applicable statistics and definitions as impetus for prioritizing both analgesia and opioid exposure in surgical quality improvement. We then review recommended modalities at each phase of perioperative care. We showcase the value of interprofessional collaboration in implementing and sustaining perioperative performance measures related to pain management and analgesic exposure, including those from the patient perspective. Surgery centers across the globe should adopt an integrated, collaborative approach to the twin goals of optimal pain management and opioid stewardship across the care continuum.

Potential Impact of Local Anesthetics Inducing Granulocyte Arrest and Altering Immune Functions on Perioperative Outcome

Introduction

Local anesthetics (LAs) are frequently used during anesthesia; however, they may influence granulocyte function which in turn could modify immune responses in the perioperative period. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of clinically used doses of bupivacaine and lidocaine on granulocyte function with regard to migration, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETosis) formation, and viability.

Methods

A total of 38 granulocyte-enriched samples from healthy subjects were obtained by whole blood lysis. Polymorphonuclear neutrophil (PMN) samples were incubated simultaneously with different concentrations of either bupivacaine (0.03–3.16 mmol/L) or lidocaine (0.007–14.21 mmol/L), or without drug (control). Live cell imaging was conducted in order to observe granulocyte chemotaxis, migration, ROS production, and NETosis. Flow cytometry was used to analyze viability and antigen expression.

Results

The track length (TL) of PMNs exposed to bupivacaine concentrations of 0.16 mmol/L and above significantly decreased compared to the control. Low concentrations of lidocaine were associated with slight but significant increases in TL, whereas this changed with concentrations above 1.4 mmol/L, showing a significant decrease in TL. PMN incubated with bupivacaine concentrations of 1.58 mmol/L and above or lidocaine concentrations of at least 3.6 mmol/L showed no migration or chemotaxis at all. Time to onset of maximal ROS production and time for half-maximal NETosis decreased in a dose-dependent manner for both substances. Equipotency in NETosis induction was reached by bupivacaine (1.1 mmol/L) at significantly lower concentrations than lidocaine (7.96 mmol/L). Cell viability and oxidative burst were unaffected by LAs.

Conclusion

Local anesthetics in clinically used doses ameliorate granulocyte defense mechanisms, thus indicating their potentially decisive effect during the perioperative period.

High rates of multi-drug resistant gram-negative organisms associated with surgical site infections in a teaching hospital in Ghana

BACKGROUND

There is limited data to guide the prevention and management of surgical site infections (SSI) in low- and middle-income countries. We prospectively studied aetiological agents associated with SSI and their corresponding antibiotic susceptibility patterns in a tertiary hospital in Ghana.

METHODS

As part of a cohort study carried out at the surgical department of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH) from July 2017 to April 2019, wound swabs were collected from patients diagnosed with SSI. Isolates cultured from the wound swabs were identified by MALDI TOF and susceptibility testing was conducted according to EUCAST 2020 guidelines. Clinical data were monitored prospectively.

RESULTS

Of 4577 patients, 438 developed an SSI and 352 microbial isolates were cultured. Isolates were predominantly Gram negative (286, 81%), a pattern seen for all kinds of surgery and all wound classes. The most common species included Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii. The majority of organisms were multi-drug resistant including 86% of E. coli, 52% of A. baumannii and 86% of K. pneumoniae; and 65% (17/26) of the cefotaxime-resistant K. pneumoniae were extended spectrum β-lactamase producing. One of 139 E. coli, 15 of 49 P. aeruginosa, and 6 of 23 A. baumannii were meropenem resistant, but no clonal pattern was found. There was a 1% (5/428) prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus.

CONCLUSIONS

The predominance of Gram-negative organisms and the high level of multi-drug resistance indicate a need to re-evaluate antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment protocols in surgical practice in low- and middle-income countries.

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.

Educating Nurses on Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain Management

As healthcare practitioners continue to search for multimodal analgesic therapies to reduce postoperative opioid requirements, surgical ward nurses need to stay up to date on the status of emerging therapies. One of these is intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain management. Unfortunately, there is a lack of resources to assist surgical ward nurses who are unfamiliar with lidocaine infusions for pain. This article aims to review the pharmacology of intravenous lidocaine for pain management, describe an experience of a university-affiliated Veterans Affairs hospital with implementation of intravenous lidocaine on the surgical ward, and suggest practical tools that can be used to develop protocols and educational content for nurses managing intravenous lidocaine infusions in the postoperative period.

Perioperative intravenous lignocaine infusion for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing surgery of the spine: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous lignocaine is an amide local anaesthetic known for its analgesic, antihyperalgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. Administration of intravenous lignocaine has been shown to enhance perioperative recovery parameters. This is the protocol for a systematic review which intends to summarise the evidence base for perioperative intravenous lignocaine administration in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes include: postoperative pain scores at rest and movement at predefined early, intermediate and late time points and adverse events. Other outcomes of interest include perioperative opioid consumption, composite morbidity, surgical complications and hospital length of stay. We will include randomised controlled trials, which compared intravenous lignocaine infusion vs standard treatment for perioperative analgesia. We will search electronic databases from inception to present; MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. The individual study risk of bias will be appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will obtain a risk ratio or mean difference (MD) from the intervention and control group event rates based on the nature of data. We will correct for the variable measurement tools by using the standardised MD (SMD). We will use a random-effects model to synthesise data. We will conduct five subgroup analysis: major versus minor surgery, emergency versus elective surgery, patients with chronic pain conditions versus patients without, duration of lignocaine infusion and adult versus paediatric. Confidence in cumulative evidence for will be classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. We will construct summary of findings tables supported detailed evidence profile tables for predefined outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD420201963314.

[Lidocaine in oncological surgery: the role of blocking in voltage-gated sodium channels. A narrative review]

BACKGROUND

The current evidence suggests that oncological surgery, which is a therapy used in the treatment of solid tumors, increases the risk of metastasis. In this regard, a wide range of tumor cells express Voltage-Gated Sodium Channels (VGSC), whose biological roles are not related to the generation of action potentials. In epithelial tumor cells, VGSC are part of cellular structures named invadopodia, involved in cell proliferation, migration, and metastasis. Recent studies showed that lidocaine could decrease cancer recurrence through its direct effects on tumor cells and immunomodulatory properties on the stress response.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the role of VGSC in tumor cells, and to describe the potential antiproliferative effect of lidocaine during the pathogenesis of metastasis.

CONTENTS

A critical review of literature from April 2017 to April 2019 was performed. Articles found on PubMed (2000-2019) were considered. A free text and MeSH-lidocaine; voltage-gated sodium channels; tumor cells; invadopodia; surgical stress; cell proliferation; metastasis; cancer recurrence-for articles in English, Spanish and Portuguese language-was used. A total of 62 were selected.

CONCLUSION

In animal studies, lidocaine acts by blocking VGSC and other receptors, decreasing migration, invasion, and metastasis. These studies need to be replicated in humans in the context of oncological surgery.

Lidocaine in oncological surgery

Background

The current evidence suggests that oncological surgery, which is a therapy used in the treatment of solid tumors, increases the risk of metastasis. In this regard, a wide range of tumor cells express Voltage-Gated Sodium Channels (VGSC), whose biological roles are not related to the generation of action potentials. In epithelial tumor cells, VGSC are part of cellular structures named invadopodia, involved in cell proliferation, migration, and metastasis. Recent studies showed that lidocaine could decrease cancer recurrence through its direct effects on tumor cells and immunomodulatory properties on the stress response.

Objective

The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the role of VGSC in tumor cells, and to describe the potential antiproliferative effect of lidocaine during the pathogenesis of metastasis.

Contents

A critical review of literature from April 2017 to April 2019 was performed. Articles found on PubMed (2000–2019) were considered. A free text and MeSH-lidocaine; voltage-gated sodium channels; tumor cells; invadopodia; surgical stress; cell proliferation; metastasis; cancer recurrence – for articles in English, Spanish and Portuguese language – was used. A total of 62 were selected.

Conclusion

In animal studies, lidocaine acts by blocking VGSC and other receptors, decreasing migration, invasion, and metastasis. These studies need to be replicated in humans in the context of oncological surgery.