UNASSIGNED: postoperative sore throat (POST) is a common complication after general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation caused by tracheal mucosal injury. Multiple techniques prevent postoperative sore throat (POST). Our study aimed to compare two techniques: intravenous and intracuff lidocaine versus placebo to prevent postoperative sore throat after general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation.
UNASSIGNED: we conducted a prospective double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial involving patients, proposed for a scheduled surgery less than 240 minutes under general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation. Patients were divided into three groups: L group: infused with saline, cuff filled with alkalinized lidocaine. S group: Infused with 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, cuff filled with saline. T group: placebo: infused with saline, cuff filled with saline. Our primary outcome was the incidence of sore throat and their (visual analog scale) VAS score in the first 24 postoperative hours. Our secondary outcomes were the incidence of cough, dysphonia, dysphagia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting.
UNASSIGNED: ninety patients were analyzed and divided into 3 groups of 30. The incidence of POST at the sixth postoperative hour, for placebo, the \"L\" group, and the \"S\" group, respectively, was 67%, 30%, and 47%. And at the 24th postoperative hours 67%, 13%, and 37%. Intravenous lidocaine reduced significantly the VAS of POST at the 24th hour (S: 6.80 ± 20.70; T: 20.67 ± 18.182; p= 0.02). Alkalinized lidocaine decreased significantly the VAS of POST in the sixth (L: 8.17 ± 22.761; T: 23 ± 21.838; p = 0.048) and the 24th postoperative hour (L: 6.33 ± 20.592; T: 20.67 ± 18.182; p= 0.019) with the lowest pain score. There was no statistically significant difference between the L and S groups at the 6 and 24 postoperative hours. Both lidocaine techniques reduced cough at emergence, with the superiority of alkalinized lidocaine (p=0.02). They decreased the incidence of cough, dysphonia, dysphagia, nausea, and vomiting compared to a placebo.
UNASSIGNED: intravenous and intracuff lidocaine allowed better control of postoperative sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine has shown promise as an effective analgesic in various clinical settings, but its utility for pain management in emergency departments, especially for bone fractures, remains relatively understudied.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared intravenous lidocaine to pethidine for femoral bone fracture pain management.
METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the emergency department of AJA University of Medical Sciences affiliated hospitals. Patients aged 18-70 years-old with femoral bone fracture and experiencing severe pain, defined as a numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain ≥ 7, were included in the study. One group received intravenous pethidine (25 mg), while the other group received intravenous lidocaine (3 mg/kg, not exceeding 200 mg), infused with 250 ml saline over 20 min. Pain levels were evaluated before treatment administration (0 min) and at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after treatment administration using the NRS.
RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study. Demographic characteristics and pain scores were similar between the two groups. The mean pain scores upon arrival for the lidocaine and pethidine groups were 8.50 ± 1 and 8.0 ± 1, respectively; after one hour, they were 4.0 ± 1 and 4.0 ± 1, respectively. While there was a statistically significant reduction in pain in both groups after one hour, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.262). Pethidine had a higher incidence of adverse events, though not statistically significant. Additionally, females required more rescue analgesics.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of intravenous lidocaine is beneficial for managing pain in femoral bone fractures, suggesting that lidocaine could be a potent alternative to opioids.
BACKGROUND: IRCT20231213060355N1 ( https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74624 ) (30/12/2023).

It remains unclear whether dosage adjustment of intravenous lidocaine is necessary during general anesthesia for elderly patients over 75 years old. This study aimed to investigate the effects of age on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of intravenous lidocaine in patients undergoing general anesthesia. A total of 599 plasma samples were collected from 76 general anesthesia patients across three age groups: 18-64, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years. Lidocaine was administered intravenously at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg for the 18-64 and 65-74 years groups, while the dose was adjusted to 1.0 mg/kg for the ≥ 75 years group. The plasma concentrations of lidocaine and its active metabolites were measured using a validated ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay, and the data were analyzed using a noncompartmental analysis. The results revealed no significant age-related differences in the PK of lidocaine and its metabolites. Among the three age groups, over 90 % of patient achieved a lidocaine concentration within a safe and effective range when the dosage was normalized to 1.5 mg/kg. In conclusion, age-based dosage adjustment was unnecessary for intravenous lidocaine in patients below 86 years undergoing general anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare intravenous lidocaine, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), and placebo on the quality of recovery and analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: A prospective, triple-arm, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial.
METHODS: A single tertiary academic medical center.
METHODS: 126 adults aged 18-65 years undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups: intravenous lidocaine infusion (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by 2 mg/kg/h) plus bilateral ESPB with saline (25 mL per side); bilateral ESPB with 0.25% ropivacaine (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion; or bilateral ESPB with saline (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion.
METHODS: The primary outcome was the 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score. The non-inferiority of lidocaine versus ESPB was assessed with a margin of -6 points and 97.5% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes included 24-h area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores, morphine consumption, and adverse events.
RESULTS: 124 patients completed the study. Median (IQR) 24-h QoR-15 scores were 123 (117-127) for lidocaine, 124 (119-126) for ESPB, and 112 (108-117) for placebo. Lidocaine was non-inferior to ESPB (median difference  -1, 97.5% CI: -4 to ∞). Both lidocaine (median difference 9, 95% CI: 6-12, P < 0.001) and ESPB (median difference 10, 95% CI: 7-13, P < 0.001) were superior to placebo. AUC for pain scores and morphine use were lower with lidocaine and ESPB versus placebo (P < 0.001 for all), with no significant differences between lidocaine and ESPB. One ESPB patient reported a transient metallic taste; no other block-related complications occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intravenous lidocaine provides a non-inferior quality of recovery compared to ESPB without requiring specialized regional anesthesia procedures. Lidocaine may offer a practical and accessible alternative within multimodal analgesia pathways.

OBJECTIVE: Acute postoperative pain impacts a significant number of patients and is associated with various complications, such as a higher occurrence of chronic postsurgical pain as well as increased morbidity and mortality.
RESULTS: Opioids are often used to manage severe pain, but they come with serious adverse effects, such as sedation, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and impaired bowel function. Therefore, most enhanced recovery after surgery protocols promote multimodal analgesia, which includes adjuvant analgesics, to provide optimal pain control. In this article, we aim to offer a comprehensive review of the contemporary literature on adjuvant analgesics in the management of acute pain, especially in the perioperative setting. Adjuvant analgesics have proven efficacy in treating postoperative pain and reducing need for opioids. While ketamine is an established option for opioid-dependent patients, magnesium and α2-agonists have, in addition to their analgetic effect, the potential to attenuate hemodynamic responses, which make them especially useful in painful laparoscopic procedures. Furthermore, α2-agonists and dexamethasone can extend the analgesic effect of regional anesthesia techniques. However, findings for lidocaine remain inconclusive.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of pre and intraoperative lidocaine infusion on short-term recovery quality after laparoscopic bariatric surgeries. In the search across MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases, we considered randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous lidocaine vs placebo (saline) for patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Seven studies (640 patients) were included. The lidocaine group had a significantly higher recovery quality score, a lower morphine consumption, and a notably reduced rate of nausea and vomiting compared with the placebo group. Additionally, Lidocaine infusion was associated with a shorter hospital stay, while no significant difference was observed in the time to bowel function recovery between both groups. In conclusion, lidocaine infusion before and during laparoscopic bariatric surgery contributes to an enhanced quality of recovery.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) are frequently employed for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal ailments. While propofol sedation is widely used during these procedures, there is a concern regarding its potential negative effects. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been suggested as an add-on to propofol sedation for GEPs, but current evidence on its efficiency and safety is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of IV lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol during GEPs.
METHODS: Electronic databases were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 31 March 2023, investigating the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine addition to propofol sedation during GEPs.
RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs involving 712 patients that received IV lidocaine and propofol for GEF and 719 patients that received propofol were analyzed. Adding IV lidocaine to propofol sedation led to significant reduction in pain after the procedure (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]; - 1.51 to - 0.32), decreased propofol usage (SMD =  - 0.89; 95% CI, - 1.31 to - 0.48), lower recovery time (SMD =  - 0.95 min; 95% CI, - 1.48 to - 0.43), and decreased pain score (SMD =  - 0.91; 95% CI, - 1.51 to - 0.32). The overall rate of adverse events was markedly less in the lidocaine group than in the control group (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that IV lidocaine improves patient outcomes by reducing post-procedural pain, decreasing propofol usage, shortening recovery time, and lowering pain scores. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunct to propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. However, further research is necessary to optimize the use of lidocaine and fully understand its long-term effects.