BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of IV lidocaine in controlling postoperative pain following laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine versus placebo/routine treatment for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was opiate requirement at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included cumulative opiate requirement, numerical pain scores (2, 12, 24, 48 h at rest and on movement), recovery indices (nausea and vomiting, length of stay, time until diet resumption, first flatus and bowel movement) and side effects (cardiac/neurological toxicity). Subgroup analyses were performed according to operation type and to compare IV lidocaine with intraperitoneal lidocaine. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 742 patients were included. IV lidocaine was associated with a small but significant reduction in opiate requirement at 24 h compared with placebo/routine care. IV lidocaine was associated with reduced cumulative opiate requirement, reduced pain scores at rest at 2, 12 and 24 h, reduced nausea and vomiting and a shorter time until resumption of diet. The length of stay did not differ between groups. There was a low incidence of IV lidocaine-associated toxicity. In subgroup analyses, there was no difference between IV and intraperitoneal lidocaine in the measured outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IV lidocaine has a multidimensional effect on the quality of recovery. IV lidocaine was associated with lower opiate requirements, reduced nausea and vomiting and a shorter time until resumption of diet. Whilst IV lidocaine appears safe, the optimal treatment regimen remains unknown. Statistical heterogeneity was high.
BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of IV lidocaine in controlling postoperative pain following laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine versus placebo/routine treatment for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was opiate requirement at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included cumulative opiate requirement, numerical pain scores (2, 12, 24, 48 h at rest and on movement), recovery indices (nausea and vomiting, length of stay, time until diet resumption, first flatus and bowel movement) and side effects (cardiac/neurological toxicity). Subgroup analyses were performed according to operation type and to compare IV lidocaine with intraperitoneal lidocaine. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 742 patients were included. IV lidocaine was associated with a small but significant reduction in opiate requirement at 24 h compared with placebo/routine care. IV lidocaine was associated with reduced cumulative opiate requirement, reduced pain scores at rest at 2, 12 and 24 h, reduced nausea and vomiting and a shorter time until resumption of diet. The length of stay did not differ between groups. There was a low incidence of IV lidocaine-associated toxicity. In subgroup analyses, there was no difference between IV and intraperitoneal lidocaine in the measured outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IV lidocaine has a multidimensional effect on the quality of recovery. IV lidocaine was associated with lower opiate requirements, reduced nausea and vomiting and a shorter time until resumption of diet. Whilst IV lidocaine appears safe, the optimal treatment regimen remains unknown. Statistical heterogeneity was high.
Authors: D Latzke; P Marhofer; S C Kettner; K Koppatz; K Turnheim; E Lackner; R Sauermann; M Müller; M Zeitlinger Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Abdourahamane Kaba; Stanislas R Laurent; Bernard J Detroz; Daniel I Sessler; Marcel E Durieux; Maurice L Lamy; Jean L Joris Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Rioko K Sakata; Roclides C de Lima; Jose A Valadão; Plinio C Leal; Ed Cr Moura; Vitor P Cruz; Caio Mb de Oliveira Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Elliott Chinn; Benjamin W Friedman; Farnia Naeem; Eddie Irizarry; Freda Afrifa; Eleftheria Zias; Michael P Jones; Scott Pearlman; Andrew Chertoff; Andrew Wollowitz; E John Gallagher Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Christopher L Wu; Adam B King; Timothy M Geiger; Michael C Grant; Michael P W Grocott; Ruchir Gupta; Jennifer M Hah; Timothy E Miller; Andrew D Shaw; Tong J Gan; Julie K M Thacker; Michael G Mythen; Matthew D McEvoy Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Geun Joo Choi; Hyun Kang; Eun Jin Ahn; Jong In Oh; Chong Wha Baek; Yong Hun Jung; Jin Yun Kim Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Chamaidi Sarakatsianou; Konstantinos Perivoliotis; George Tzovaras; Athina A Samara; Ioannis Baloyiannis Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155