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 treatmentWe 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.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for the use of intravenous ketamine for analgosedation in the intensive care unit.
METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were queried from inception until July 2015. Search terms used included ketamine, intensive care, and critical care. The search retrieved 584 articles to be screened for inclusion. The intent was to include randomized controlled studies using sustained intravenous infusions (>24 hours) of ketamine in the critically ill patients.
RESULTS: One trial evaluated opioid consumption as an outcome in postoperative critically ill patients who were randomized to ketamine or saline infusions. The mean cumulative morphine consumption at 48 hours was significantly lower in the ketamine group (58 ± 35 mg) compared to the morphine-only group (80 ± 37 mg; P < .05). Other trials showed the potential safety of ketamine in terms of cerebral hemodynamics in patients with traumatic brain injury, improved gastrointestinal motility, and decreased vasopressor requirements. The observational study and case reports suggest that ketamine is safe and effective and may have a role in patients who are refractory to other therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine use may decrease analgesic consumption in the intensive care unit. Additional trials are needed to further delineate the role of ketamine for analgosedation.
PURPOSE: To determine whether ketamine added to morphine or hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) provides clinically relevant reductions in postoperative pain, opioid requirements, and adverse events when compared with morphine or hydromorphone PCA in adults undergoing surgery.
SOURCE: We systematically searched six databases up to June 2, 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine plus morphine/hydromorphone PCA vs morphine/hydromorphone PCA for postoperative pain in adults.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-six RCTs including 2,502 patients proved eligible, and 22 of these were at low risk of bias. The addition of ketamine to morphine/hydromorphone PCA decreased postoperative pain intensity at six to 72 hr when measured at rest (weighted mean difference [WMD] on a 10-cm visual analogue scale ranged from -0.4 to -1.3 cm) and during mobilization (WMD ranged from -0.4 to -0.5 cm). Adjunctive ketamine also significantly reduced cumulative morphine consumption at 24-72 hr by approximately 5-20 mg. Predefined subgroup analyses and meta-regression did not detect significant differences across subgroups, including a dose-response relationship. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction scores at 24 and 48 hr. Nevertheless, the addition of ketamine to morphine/hydromorphone PCA significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; absolute risk reduction, 8.9%; 95% CI, 4.6 to 12.2). Significant effects on other adverse events (e.g., hallucinations, vivid dreams) were not detected, though only a few studies reported on them.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding ketamine to morphine/hydromorphone PCA provides a small improvement in postoperative analgesia while reducing opioid requirements. Adjunctive ketamine also reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting without a detected increase in other adverse effects; however, adverse events were probably underreported.
BACKGROUND: Improvement of postoperative pain and other perioperative outcomes remain a significant challenge and a matter of debate among perioperative clinicians. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion on postoperative pain and recovery in patients undergoing various surgical procedures.
METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and ClinicalTrials.gov, and congress proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials until May 2014, that compared patients who did or did not receive continuous perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion.
RESULTS: Forty-five trials (2802 participants) were included. Meta-analysis suggested that lidocaine reduced postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) at 1-4 h (MD -0.84, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.59) and at 24 h (MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11) after surgery, but not at 48 h (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03). Subgroup analysis and trial sequential analysis suggested pain reduction for patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery or open abdominal surgery, but not for patients undergoing other surgeries. There was limited evidence of positive effects of lidocaine on postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, opioid requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and length of hospital stay. There were limited data available on the effect of systemic lidocaine on adverse effects or surgical complications. Quality of evidence was limited as a result of inconsistency (heterogeneity) and indirectness (small studies).
CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence suggesting that i.v. lidocaine may be a useful adjuvant during general anaesthesia because of its beneficial impact on several outcomes after surgery.
BACKGROUND: Effective pain management after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction improves patient satisfaction and function.
PURPOSE: To collect and evaluate the available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain control after ACL reconstruction.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, UpToDate, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Scopus following PRISMA guidelines (July 2014). Only RCTs comparing a method of postoperative pain control to another method or placebo were included.
RESULTS: A total of 77 RCTs met inclusion criteria: 14 on regional nerve blocks, 21 on intra-articular injections, 4 on intramuscular/intravenous injections, 12 on multimodal regimens, 6 on oral medications, 10 on cryotherapy/compression, 6 on mobilization, and 5 on intraoperative techniques. Single-injection femoral nerve blocks provided superior analgesia to placebo for up to 24 hours postoperatively; however, this also resulted in a quadriceps motor deficit. Indwelling femoral catheters utilized for 2 days postoperatively provided superior analgesia to a single-injection femoral nerve block. Local anesthetic injections at the surgical wound site or intra-articularly provided equivalent analgesia to regional nerve blocks. Continuous-infusion catheters of a local anesthetic provided adequate pain relief but have been shown to cause chondrolysis. Cryotherapy improved analgesia compared to no cryotherapy in 4 trials, while in 4 trials, ice water and water at room temperature provided equivalent analgesic effects. Early weightbearing decreased pain compared to delayed weightbearing. Oral gabapentin given preoperatively and oral zolpidem given for the first week postoperatively each decreased opioid consumption as compared to placebo. Ibuprofen reduced pain compared to acetaminophen. Oral ketorolac reduced pain compared to hydrocodone-acetaminophen.
CONCLUSION: Regional nerve blocks and intra-articular injections are both effective forms of analgesia. Cryotherapy-compression appears to be beneficial, provided that intra-articular temperatures are sufficiently decreased. Early mobilization reduces pain symptoms. Gabapentin, zolpidem, ketorolac, and ibuprofen decrease opioid consumption. Despite the vast amount of high-quality evidence on this topic, further research is needed to determine the optimal multimodal approach that can maximize recovery while minimizing pain and opioid consumption.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results provide the best available evidence from RCTs on pain control regimens after ACL reconstruction.
OBJECTIVE: Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting opioid that is used commonly during both short-term and prolonged surgery. This review investigated associations of intraoperative remifentanil administration with acute postoperative pain, hyperalgesia, and chronic postoperative pain, with emphasis on the perioperative coanesthetic drug regimen used.
METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were searched for randomized studies, evaluating the intraoperative use of remifentanil (>2▒h) versus another analgesic or a different dosage of remifentanil, and reporting acute postoperative pain parameters such as postoperative pain scores, hyperalgesia, acute opioid tolerance, or analgesics requirements. Furthermore, all studies in which remifentanil was used intraoperatively and parameters for chronic postoperative pain were measured were included (pain levels after a prolonged period of time after surgery).
RESULTS: From the 21 studies that were identified, less than half of the studies found higher acute postoperative pain and/or higher postoperative analgesic requirements after intraoperative remifentanil use. Coanesthetics to some extent determined this incidence, with mainly studies using volatile agents reporting increased pain levels. There was less evidence when remifentanil was combined with total intravenous anesthesia or a combination of anesthetics. The limited number of studies (n=4) evaluating chronic pain suggested a potential association with the intraoperative use of remifentanil.
DISCUSSION: Although studies are diverse and sample sizes small, coanesthetics used in combination with remifentanil may influence the occurrence of postoperative hyperalgesia. No firm conclusions could be made regarding acute and chronic pain, indicating that further research with the goal to investigate the effect of volatile or intravenous anesthetics along with simultaneous remifentanil infusion on acute and chronic postoperative pain is needed.
Background Intravenous ketamine has been used during general and regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. No systematic review and meta-analysis on the desired effects and adverse effects of ketamine administration during caesarean section have yet been performed. Methods After a systematic literature search a meta-analysis was conducted with the random effects model. Weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Results Twelve randomised controlled double-blind trials comprising 953 patients were included: seven studies reported on spinal anaesthesia and five on general anaesthesia. Significant differences in the aforementioned outcome variables were found only in the spinal anaesthesia studies. In the spinal anaesthesia studies the time to the first analgesic request was significantly longer in ketamine-treated women, the WMD was 49.36 min (95% CI 43.31-55.41); visual analogue scale pain scores at rest 2 h after surgery were significantly lower. No differences were observed for maternal nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and psychomimetic effects. Only few data were found for neonatal outcomes. Conclusions We conclude that ketamine enhances post-operative analgesia after caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. There is a paucity of data for several maternal adverse effects as well as for neonatal well-being. Further studies are needed for general anaesthesia.
BACKGROUND: Perioperative neuropathic pain is under‐recognized and often undertreated. Chronic pain may develop after any routine surgery, but it can have a far greater incidence after amputation, thoracotomy or mastectomy. The peak noxious barrage due to the neural trauma associated with these operations may be reduced in the perioperative period with the potential to reduce the risk of chronic pain. Databases and data treatment: A systematic review of the evidence for perioperative interventions reducing acute and chronic pain associated with amputation, mastectomy or thoracotomy. RESULTS: Thirty‐two randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Gabapentinoids reduced pain after mastectomy, but a single dose was ineffective for thoracotomy patients who had an epidural. Gabapentinoids were ineffective for vascular amputees with pre‐existing chronic pain. Venlafaxine was associated with less chronic pain after mastectomy. Intravenous and topical lidocaine and perioperative EMLA (eutectic mixture of local anaesthetic) cream reduced the incidence of chronic pain after mastectomy, whereas local anaesthetic infiltration appeared ineffective. The majority of the trials investigating regional analgesia found it to be beneficial for chronic symptoms. Ketamine and intercostal cryoanalgesia offered no reduction in chronic pain. Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) reduced the incidence of post‐thoracotomy pain in one study, whereas high‐dose remifentanil exacerbated chronic pain in another. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate dose regimes of gabapentinoids, antidepressants, local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia may potentially reduce the severity of both acute and chronic pain for patients. Ketamine was not effective at reducing chronic pain. Intercostal cryoanalgesia was not effective and has the potential to increase the risk of chronic pain. TIVA may be beneficial but the effects of opioids are unclear. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
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.
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 treatmentWe 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.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
