Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Analgesia Following Laparoscopic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis
- 1.6k Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsLidocaine Pain Score Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Postoperative Analgesia Transversus Abdominis Plane
We would like to thank all of the corresponding authors who responded to requests for supplementary data.
Conflict of interests
No conflicts of interest to declare.
- 23.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 339:6Google Scholar
- 24.Woodbury G (2002) Chapter 5. Normal probability distributions. In: An Introduction to statistics, 1st edn. Cengage Learning, p 254Google Scholar
- 28.UK Medicines Information pharmacists for NHS healthcare Professionals (UKMi) (2011) What are the equivalent doses of oral morphine to other oral opioids when used as analgesics in adult palliative care? http://www.surreyandsussex.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UKMi-Equivalent-doses-of-Oral-Morphine-to-other-Oral-Opioids-in-adult-Palliative-Care.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2014
- 31.Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48Google Scholar
- 48.Wall PD, Melzack R (1999) Pain measurements in persons in pain. In: Wall PD, Melzack R (eds) Textbook of Pain, 4th edn. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- 52.The Resus Council (2010) 2010 Resuscitation Guidelines. 177Google Scholar