Administration Of Lidocaine Research Articles

Desflurane is not inferior to sevoflurane in the occurrence of adverse respiratory events during laryngeal mask airway anesthesia: a non-inferiority randomized double-blinded controlled study.

Compared to sevoflurane, desflurane is less favorable to most anesthesiologists for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) anesthesia because desflurane has a pungent odor. This non-inferiority study aimed to determine whether desflurane is not worse than sevoflurane in triggering airway irritations during general anesthesia using LMA. Patients scheduled for elective surgery under LMA anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either desflurane or sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia. After intravenous fentanyl, lidocaine and propofol administration followed by LMA insertion, 0.5-1.0 MAC of the volatile anesthetic in 50% N2O was maintained throughout the surgery. The primary outcome was the occurrence of perioperative adverse respiratory events. Other outcomes included recovery profiles, hemodynamic changes and postoperative complications. One-hundred and ten patients per group completed the study without any serious complications, lost to follow-up, or protocol deviation. During awake LMA removal, patients in the desflurane group experienced lesser episodes of laryngospasm (risk difference, -7.3%; 95% CI, -12.7% to -1.9%; P=0.009) than those in the sevoflurane group. The emergence time and time to LMA removal were significantly shorter in the desflurane group. The quality of recovery indicated by an ability to self-transfer from bed to bed was significantly better after desflurane anesthesia. No difference between groups was found in a return of orientation and a readiness for post-anesthesia care unit discharge. Desflurane is non-inferior to sevoflurane in the occurrence of laryngospasm at emergence after LMA anesthesia. The superiority of desflurane compared to sevoflurane with regards to respiratory complications requires further investigation.

Lidocaine治療に伴い高尿酸血症を生じたSCN2A変異 (p.Trp1594Cys) に伴う大田原症候群の1例

Lidocaine治療に伴い高尿酸血症を生じたSCN2A変異 (p.Trp1594Cys) に伴う大田原症候群の1例

Factors Associated With Minimum Effective Volume of Lidocaine 1.5% for Sciatic Nerve Blocks.

The objectives of this study were to investigate the correlations between the minimum effective volume (MEV) of lidocaine 1.5% for an ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block and individual factors including the cross-sectional nerve area, sex, age, body mass index, and the depth of the sciatic nerve and to evaluate the safety of combined femoral and sciatic nerve blocks by monitoring the plasma concentration of local anesthetics. Forty patients received combined single-shot femoral and continuous sciatic nerve blocks. The femoral nerve block was performed with an in-plane technique and 15 mL of lidocaine 1.5%. A continuous peripheral nerve block annular tube was positioned between the tibial and peroneal nerves inside the paraneural sheath. Thirty minutes after the femoral nerve block, a loading dose of 5 mL of lidocaine 1.5% was given to block the sciatic nerve after obtaining the maximum compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude using nerve conduction studies. Additional lidocaine 1.5% was pumped at a rate of 30 mL/h through the indwelling annular tube if, after 8 minutes, the CMAP amplitude was still present. The CMAP amplitude monitored by the nerve conduction studies and pinprick tests were recorded every 2 minutes after the administration of lidocaine 1.5%. When the CMAP amplitude decreased to nearly 0 mV, this MEV was recorded. The influences of the cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve, sex, age, body mass index, and the depth of the sciatic nerve on the MEV were analyzed using stepwise multiple linear regression. Blood samples were collected from 10 patients to evaluate the safety of combined femoral and sciatic nerve blocks by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Blood was drawn at 0 minutes before femoral nerve injection; 0 minutes before sciatic nerve injection; 8 minutes after sciatic nerve injection; and 0, 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 120 minutes after the pumping of lidocaine 1.5% stopped. A significant correlation was found between the MEV of lidocaine 1.5% and the cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve (r=0.459), with a regression equation of the MEV (mL)=5.969+0.095×(the cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve). The coefficient of determination was 0.211 (P<0.05). The MEV of lidocaine 1.5% for complete sciatic nerve blocks ranged from 7 to 15 mL. The maximum concentrations of lidocaine, monoethylglycinexylidide, and glycinexylidide were 1672.9 (227.6), 265.7 (32.7), and 42.2 (22.4) ng/mL, respectively. There is a positive correlation between the cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve and the MEV. The regression equation can help to predict the MEV of lidocaine 1.5% for popliteal sciatic nerve blocks. The maximum concentrations of lidocaine and its metabolites did not approach toxic threshold limits in this study.

Prophylactic Effects of Intravenous Dexamethasone and Lidocaine on Attenuating Hemodynamic-Respiratory and Pain Complications in Children Undergoing Cleft Palate Repair Surgery With General Anesthesia

This study aimed to compare the prophylactic effects of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone and lidocaine on hemodynamic condition, respiratory complications, pain control, and vomit incidence following cleft palate repair surgery. This double-blind randomized controlled trial was carried out on 87 children assigned to three groups. Prior to anesthesia, subjects in groups D and L received 0.2 and 1 mg/kg IV dexamethasone and lidocaine, respectively. Moreover, group C received placebo in a similar condition. The outcome variables were recorded prior to the surgery and then every 15 minutes during the surgical and recovery time. Mean heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), and mean end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) during the surgical time were not significantly different between dexamethasone and lidocaine groups. Dexamethasone significantly improved the level of blood oxygen saturation (SPO2) during the recovery time. Nevertheless, MABP in recovery time did not significantly decrease in the dexamethasone group. There were no significant differences in respiratory complications, pain score, and vomiting incidence between lidocaine and dexamethasone groups. Premedication with both IV dexamethasone and lidocaine provided similar stable hemodynamic and respiratory conditions during the surgical time. However, the use of dexamethasone developed more desirable effects on HR and SPO2 than administration of lidocaine during the recovery time. Both drugs significantly lessened postoperative pain compared to the placebo group at this time.

Effects of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate.

To evaluate the effects of lidocaine as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate and anesthetized with isoflurane. 40 client-owned dogs (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification I or II and age ≥ 6 months) scheduled to undergo anesthesia for elective procedures. In a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial, dogs received 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution (2.0 mg/kg [0.9 mg/lb], IV; n = 20) or buffered crystalloid solution (0.1 mL/kg [0.05 mL/lb], IV; 20; control treatment) after premedication with acepromazine (0.005 mg/kg [0.002 mg/lb], IM) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg, IM). Anesthesia was induced with propofol (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb], IV, with additional doses administered as needed) and maintained with isoflurane. Sedation was assessed, and anesthetic and cardiopulmonary variables were measured at various points; values were compared between treatment groups. Propofol doses, total sedation scores, and anesthetic and most cardiopulmonary measurements did not differ significantly between treatment groups over the monitoring period; only oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry differed significantly (lower in the lidocaine group). Mean ± SD propofol dose required for endotracheal intubation was 1.30 ± 0.68 mg/kg (0.59 ± 0.31 mg/lb) and 1.41 ± 0.40 mg/kg (0.64 ± 0.18 mg/lb) for the lidocaine and control groups, respectively. No propofol-sparing effect was observed with administration of lidocaine as a coinduction agent for the premedicated dogs of this study. Mean propofol doses required for endotracheal intubation were considerably lower than currently recommended doses for premedicated dogs. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2020;256:93-101).

Lumbosacral injection of lidocaine, detomidine and lidocaine–detomidine in goats: anti-nociceptive effects and changes on haematobiochemical parameters

ABSTRACT This study was carried out to compare the analgesic effects and haematobiochemical changes produced by the administration of lidocaine, detomidine and lidocaine–detomidine combination in the epidural space of goats. All goats were assigned to all of the three different epidural treatments using a balanced crossover design with two-weeks washout period. Nociception was investigated by pinprick; times to the onset and duration of anti-nociception in the perineal region were demonstrated. Incoordination, ataxia and analgesic effects were carefully observed and recorded according to the scoring system. The blood samples for haematological and biochemical changes were collected at 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min post-treatment. Our results showed that detomidine treatment produced a highly significant (P < 0.01) and (P < 0.0001) earlier onset time than lidocaine and lidocaine–detomidine combination, respectively. Detomidine treatment had a significantly longer duration of analgesia than lidocaine (P < 0.01) and lidocaine–detomidine combination (P < 0.0001) treatments. Moreover, all treatments showed no effect on haematological or biochemical parameters, with no obvious systemic effects. In conclusion, administering a detomidine provided a longer duration of analgesia and a useful level of systemic sedation in goats.

Comparison of Spraying and Nebulized Lidocaine in Patients Undergoing Esophago-Gastro-Duodenoscopy: A Randomized Trial

Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) was performed under the topical anesthesia of the pharynx. However spraying lidocaine was found to be an annoying maneuver to patients, while nebulized lidocaine appeared to efficiently suppress gags and cough reflexes in airway anesthesia. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of spraying and nebulized lidocaine for patients undergoing EGD.A total of 110 patients undergoing elective EGD, with a history of neither lidocaine intolerance nor irritable airways due to smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), upper respiratory infection, asthma, cardiac and pulmonary diseases and allergy to lidocaine were included. All patients were randomized into two groups: A- where 5 puffs (10 mg/puff) of spraying lidocaine were administered four times at 5-minute intervals, up to a total dose of 200 mg, and B-where 250 mg of nebulized lidocaine was administered via a nebulization kit with an oxygen face mask of 7 LPM for 15 minutes prior to the commencement of EGD. The procedure was performed by the same board-certified endoscopist The co-researcher who was blinded to the lidocaine administration technique assessed the ease of esophageal instrumentation as either difficult, poor; fair or excellent. Both the endoscopist and the patients expressed their satisfaction by using the numerical rating scale.The endoscopist expressed her satisfaction with instrumentation, which showed significant difference between group A and group B as 84.8 ± 8.3 and 79.2 ± 11.2, respectively. The co-researcher also found that group A patients responded to the ease of esophageal instrumentation better than those in group B. However nebulized lidocaine had significant advantages over spraying lidocaine, with better acceptance in patients undergoing EGD.The endoscopist expressed her approval of spraying lidocaine for taking less time to start the procedure, ease for instrumentation, less gag reflex during the procedure, less presence of hypersecretion, and smooth operation. However participants favored nebulized lidocaine administration.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing rocuronium-induced pain responses and rocuronium-induced withdrawal responses: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Study objective: Rocuronium is widely used during the induction of general anesthesia. However, it is associated with rocuronium-induced pain response, which can appear as a rocuronium-induced withdrawal response. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions in preventing rocuronium-induced pain response and rocuronium-induced withdrawal response using a network meta-analysis. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs. Setting: Pharmacological interventions to prevent rocuronium-induced pain response and rocuronium-induced pain response and rocuronium-induced withdrawal. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar were systematically searched from its inception until Mar 2020. Methods: We searched multiple databases and extracted randomized controlled trials that compared two or more pharmacological interventions to prevent rocuronium-induced pain response and rocuronium-induced withdrawal response in adult patients who received rocuronium injections for general anesthesia. We conducted network meta-analysis and used surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and rankograms to present the hierarchy of the pharmacological interventions evaluated. Results: In total, 43 studies (5,291 patients) were included in this network meta-analysis and 31 pharmacological interventions were evaluated. The rankogram and cumulative ranking plot showed that oxycodone followed by a combination of lidocaine and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), esmolol, alfentanil, and rocuronium mixed with NaHCO3 had the lowest frequency of rocuronium-induced withdrawal response. In terms of rocuronium-induced pain response, NaHCO3 mixed with rocuronium showed the lowest frequency, followed by a combination of lidocaine and NaHCO3, a combination of lidocaine and nitrous oxide, rocuronium mixed with lidocaine, and lidocaine. Conclusions: Lidocaine administration has been shown to reduce the incidence of rocuronium-induced pain response regardless of the method of injection or drug combination. The combination of lidocaine and NaHCO3 or mixing NaHCO3with rocuronium was effective at reducing rocuronium-induced withdrawal response. In particular, oxycodone was shown to be more effective than the other opioids evaluated and esmolol was also found to be effective at reducing rocuronium-induced withdrawal response.

A survey of perioperative intravenous lidocaine use by anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand.

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine administration by anaesthetists is purported to confer a variety of benefits across a range of surgical procedures. It remains unclear whether the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety is sufficient to influence Australasian practice broadly, and whether significant barriers to uptake exist. We therefore conducted a survey of Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists to evaluate patterns of lidocaine use, and perceptions relating to benefit and safety. Of 979 survey invitations, 295 (30.1%) responded. Of these, 51.9% of anaesthetists incorporate lidocaine administration into their practice. Amongst users, the most common indication is open abdominal or pelvic surgery (88.9%), with the principal intent of reducing acute pain and opioid use (both 92.2%). Only 51% perceive lidocaine to have a role in the prevention of chronic post-surgical pain, and less than a third administer it for operations strongly linked to this condition. Nearly all (91%) users deliver the drug by intraoperative bolus and infusion, with the majority using doses between 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg for both the bolus and the hourly infusion rate. When parallel local anaesthetic techniques are employed, 44.4% restrict the dose, 37.3% turn the lidocaine infusion off first and 15.7% make no modifications. Most respondents terminate infusions by the end of surgery (52.3%) or in the post-anaesthesia care unit (26.8%). Few deliver postoperative infusions without electrocardiographic monitoring (5.9%). There were no reports of life-threatening events. The dichotomy in Australasian use of perioperative lidocaine revealed by this survey confirms that large multicentre trials are now required to guide practice accurately.

The effect of intravenous lidocaine on hemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation during sufentanil-based induction of anaesthesia.

Endotracheal intubation (ETI) can cause a cardiovascular response. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on the hemodynamic response to ETI during sufentanil-based induction of anaesthesia. Ninety patients aged 18-65 years were recruited, induction of anaesthesia was initiated by sufentanil, midazolam, cisatracurium, and propofol, the patients were randomized to three groups: Group L1 received 1 mg/kg-1 of lidocaine, Group L1.5 received 1.5 mg kg-1 of lidocaine, Group S received an equal volume of normal saline (NS). Lidocaine or NS was administered in a bolus 2 min before ETI. Systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) were recorded at four time points: before anaesthetic induction, 1 min after lidocaine administration, immediately after ETI, 5 min after ETI. The incidences of hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia were also recorded. The SAP, DAP, MAP, and HR at baseline were not significantly different among the three groups (P = 0.620, P = 0.575, P = 0.433, P = 0.537, respectively). Immediately after ETI, the SAP in Group L1 was significantly lower than Group S (P = 0.024), while the DAP, MAP, and HR were comparable among the three groups at the same time points (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidences of hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia and tachycardia among the three groups (P > 0.200). Intravenous lidocaine could attenuate the increase of blood pressure but not HR after ETI during sufentanil-based induction of anaesthesia without increased incidence of side-effects.

Surgical Sphincter Saving Approach and Topical Nifedipine for Chronic Anal Fissure with Hypertonic Internal Anal Sphincter.

The role of augmented internal anal sphincter (IAS) tone in the genesis of posterior chronic anal fissure (CAPF) is still unknown. Lateral internal sphincterotomy is the most employed surgical procedure, nevertheless it is burdened by high risk post-operative anal incontinence. The aim of our study is to evaluate results of sphincter saving procedure with post-operative pharmacological sphincterotomy for patients affected by CAPF with IAS hypertonia. Methods: We enrolled 30 patients, undergone fissurectomy and anoplasty with V-Y cutaneous flap advancement; all patients received topical administration of nifedipine 0.3% and lidocaine 1.5% ointment-based therapy before and for 15 days after surgery. The primary goal was patient's complete healing and the evaluation of incontinence and recurrence rate; the secondary goal included the evaluation of manometry parameters, symptom relief and complications related to nifedipine and lidocaine administration. Results: All wounds healed within 40 days after surgery. We didn't observe any de novo postoperative anal incontinence case. We reported 2 cases of recurrences, healed after conservative therapy. We didn't report any local complications related to the administration of the ointment therapy; with whom all patients reported a good compliance. Conclusions: Fissurectomy and anoplasty with V-Y cutaneous advancement flap and topical administration of nifedipine and lidocaine, is an effective treatment for CAPF with IAS hypertonia.

Assessment of the efficacy of nebulized local anesthesia using continuous positive airway pressure during fibroptic bronchoscopy

Background The administration of nebulized lidocaine before fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) is preferred than conventional lidocaine spray methods in reducing complications, reducing the need for additional lidocaine doses, and decreasing the incidence of lidocaine adverse effects. The use of nebulized lidocaine through continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) seems to be superior owing to rapid and deep deposition of the anesthetic agent. The aim of this research is to study if the use of nebulized lidocaine through CPAP is superior to the conventional methods of lidocaine spray before FOB. Patients and methods An observational prospective cohort study was performed in the Chest Department at Ain Shams University hospitals on 40 patients subjected to FOB. They were randomly divided into two groups: group A included 20 patients who underwent FOB using nebulized lidocaine through CPAP, and group B included 20 patients who underwent FOB using conventional lidocaine spray. After doing FOB, we noticed the need for additional doses of lidocaine to complete FOB, duration of FOB, easy entry of the FOB, and incidence of complications. Results Interestingly, patients in group A needed less additional doses of lidocaine spray to complete FOB. Moreover, they had less incidence of coughing and occurrence of gag reflex during FOB, and also less patients’ discomfort, but both duration of FOB and easy entry of the FOB are the same in both groups. Conclusion Administration of nebulized lidocaine through CPAP before FOB leads to decreased use of lidocaine with less incidence of its adverse effects when compared with conventional method of lidocaine spray, and also it has better patient acceptance than lidocaine spray owing to its unpleasant taste. So it should be recommended for use before FOB on a wider scale.

Intra-Arterial Lidocaine Is Not Found to Be Effective for Reducing Pain after Uterine Fibroid Embolization in a Retrospective Study: Now What?

I would like to thank the authors for undertaking and publishing the study titled “Intra-arterial lidocaine administration for anesthesia after uterine artery embolization with trisacryl gelatin microspheres for leiomyoma.” With uterine artery embolization (UAE) for fibroids being a frequently performed interventional radiology procedure in many practice settings, the subject matter is undoubtedly relevant to Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology readers. Also, there is limited understanding of the mechanism in question—that is, the way in which intra-arterial lidocaine can reduce pain in an embolized uterine artery.

Effects of Lidocaine Oropharyngeal Spray Applied Before Endotracheal Intubation on QT Dispersion in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of lidocaine oropharyngeal spray applied before endotracheal intubation on hemodynamic responses and electrocardiographic parameters in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.MethodsA total of 60 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting surgery were included in this prospective randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, the topical lidocaine group (administration of 10% lidocaine oropharyngeal spray, five minutes before laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation) and the control group. Both groups were compared with each other in terms of main hemodynamic parameters including mean arterial pressure and heart rate, as well as P and QT wave dispersion durations, before and after endotracheal intubation.ResultsThe groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and other demographics and basic clinical characteristics. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of QT dispersion durations after laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. The increase in QT dispersion duration was not statistically significant in the topical lidocaine group, whereas the increase in QT dispersion duration was statistically significant in the control group. When the groups were compared in terms of P wave dispersion durations, there were significant decreases in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups.ConclusionOur study revealed that the topical lidocaine administration before endotracheal intubation prevented increase of QT dispersion duration in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.Trial RegistrationNCT03304431

Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Intraoperative Intravenous Lidocaine on the Opioid Consumption and Criteria for Hospital Discharge After Bariatric Surgery.

Surgical trauma, pain and opioids can cause nausea, vomiting, ileus and increased length of hospital stay. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the time to recovery of gastrointestinal function and the time to meet hospital discharge criteria after laparoscopic bariatric surgery with intraoperative intravenous lidocaine administration. Secondary objectives were to evaluate morphine consumption during the first 24h and the side effects of opioids. Fifty-eight patients aged 18 to 60years who underwent bariatric surgery were allocated into two groups. Group 1 patients received intravenous lidocaine (1.5mg/kg) 5min before induction of anaesthesia, followed by infusion (2mg/kg/h) until the end of surgery. Group 2 patients were given 0.9% saline solution (placebo) and infusion of 0.9% saline solution during surgery, in same volume as group 1. Anaesthesia was performed with fentanyl (5μg/kg), propofol (2mg/kg), rocuronium (0.6mg/kg) and sevoflurane. Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia was with morphine. There were two groups that were evaluated: time to recovery of gastrointestinal function and time to meet discharge criteria. There was no significant difference between groups regarding the time to first flatus, time to meet discharge criteria and occurrence of side effects. Consumption of intraoperative sevoflurane and morphine over 24h was significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Side effects observed were nausea and vomiting, with no difference between groups. Perioperative intravenous lidocaine is feasible and easily accessible when administered at appropriate doses. Lidocaine reduces morphine consumption.

Botulinum toxin A treatment for post-herpetic neuralgia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The present meta-analysis study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of local administration of botulinum toxin (BTX-A) vs. lidocaine in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia. A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP Information Co. and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BTX-A and lidocaine in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia. The primary outcomes were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores at 1, 2 and 3 months after treatment and the effective rate. Secondary outcomes were scores on the McGill pain questionnaire and adverse event rate. A total of 7 RCTs comprising 752 patients were included. The VAS pain score was significantly lower at 1 month [mean difference (MD)=−2.31; 95% CI: −3.06, −1.56; P<0.00001)], 2 months (MD=−2.18; 95% CI: −2.24, −2.11; P<0.00001) and 3 months (MD=−1.93; 95% CI: −3.05, −0.82; P=0.0007) after treatment, the effective rate was significantly higher (odds ratio=2.9; 95% CI: 1.71, 4.13; P<0.0001) and scores on the McGill pain questionnaire were significantly lower (MD=−10.93; 95% CI: −21.02, −0.83; Z=2.12; P=0.03) in patients who received BTX-A for post-herpetic neuralgia compared to those who received lidocaine. There was no difference in the adverse event rate between treatments. In conclusion, BTX-A has potential as a safe and effective treatment option for post-herpetic neuralgia. Further large and well-designed RCTs are required to confirm this conclusion.

Intra-Arterial Lidocaine Administration for Anesthesia after Uterine Artery Embolization with Trisacryl Gelatin Microspheres for Leiomyoma.

To evaluate whether administration of lidocaine into the uterine artery for anesthesia immediately after uterine artery embolization (UAE) with trisacryl gelatin microspheres (TAGM) for leiomyoma is safe and effective. In a single-institution retrospective study, 100 patients underwent UAE using TAGM with a pruned tree endpoint between June 2014 and April 2019. The first 50 patients (control group) underwent UAE without lidocaine; in the second 50 patients (study group), lidocaine was administered into the uterine artery immediately after UAE. Baseline characteristics and technical and periprocedural outcomes were compared. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 hours after UAE were compared between the groups with repeated measures analysis of variance. Each multivariate-adjusted VAS score < 24 hours was compared with analysis of covariance. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics or technical and periprocedural outcomes, including the volume of morphine used (P= .415), between the groups. No significant differences were found in crude or multivariate-adjusted VAS scores at each time point < 24 hours. Only the multivariate-adjusted VAS score 3 hours after UAE was 0.7 lower in the study group (mean ± SE, 2.2 ± 0.3 vs 2.9 ± 0.3); however, no significant difference was noted (P= .070). No adverse events associated with lidocaine were detected. Intra-arterial lidocaine administration immediately after UAE with TAGM for leiomyoma was safe, but did not contribute to significant reductions in pain or volume of narcotic agent administered.

Effect of intraoperative paravertebral or intravenous lidocaine versus control during lung resection surgery on postoperative complications: A randomized controlled trial

BackgroundUse of minimally invasive surgical techniques for lung resection surgery (LRS), such as video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS), has increased in recent years. However, there is little information about the best anesthetic technique in this context. This surgical approach is associated with a lower intensity of postoperative pain, and its use has been proposed in programs for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This study compares the severity of postoperative complications in patients undergoing LRS who have received lidocaine intraoperatively either intravenously or via paravertebral administration versus saline.Methods/designWe will conduct a single-center randomized controlled trial involving 153 patients undergoing LRS through a thoracoscopic approach. The patients will be randomly assigned to one of the following study groups: intravenous lidocaine with more paravertebral thoracic (PVT) saline, PVT lidocaine with more intravenous saline, or intravenous remifentanil with more PVT saline. The primary outcome will be the comparison of the postoperative course through Clavien-Dindo classification. Furthermore, we will compare the perioperative pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response by monitoring biomarkers in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and blood, as well as postoperative analgesic consumption between the three groups of patients. We will use an ANOVA to compare quantitative variables and a chi-squared test to compare qualitative variables.DiscussionThe development of less invasive surgical techniques means that anesthesiologists must adapt their perioperative management protocols and look for anesthetic techniques that provide good analgesic quality and allow rapid rehabilitation of the patient, as proposed in the ERAS protocols. The administration of a continuous infusion of intravenous lidocaine has proven to be useful and safe for the management of other types of surgery, as demonstrated in colorectal cancer. We want to know whether the continuous administration of lidocaine by a paravertebral route can be substituted with the intravenous administration of this local anesthetic in a safe and effective way while avoiding the risks inherent in the use of regional anesthetic techniques. In this way, this technique could be used in a safe and effective way in ERAS programs for pulmonary resection.Trial registrationEudraCT, 2016–004271-52; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03905837. Protocol number IGGFGG-2016 version 4.0, 27th April 2017.

Sedoanalgesia with dexmedetomidine and ketamine during endoscopic resection of an obstructing tumor of tracheal bifurcation in the patient with lung cancer and its atelectasis

The technique of multimodal sedoanalgesia with dexmedetomidine (DMM) and ketamine in combination with lidocaine, which was used in 55 years old male patient for loop electroexcision of a tumor of the right main bronchus, originating from the right lung (adenocarcinoma), which caused atelectasis of this lung and prolapsing into the bifurcation region, is presented. The endotracheal fragment of the tumor periodically blocked the mouth of the left main bronchus, causing attacks of asphyxiation. DMM has the unique ability to cause efficient sedation and moderate analgesia in combination with an antistress effect, and most importantly, without spontaneous breathing depression. In similar situations, these properties of DMM make it an agent of choice for anesthetic management. When working in reflexogenic zones, the addition of small doses of ketamine can increase the effectiveness of the method due to analgesic properties and insignificant effect on respiration. Intravenous administration of lidocaine plus terminal anesthesia with this local anesthetic complements the anesthetic protection.

The effect of midazolam or lidocaine administration prior to etomidate induction of anesthesia on heart rate, arterial pressure, intraocular pressure and serum cortisol concentration in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate selected effects of midazolam or lidocaine administered prior to etomidate for co-induction of anesthesia in healthy dogs. Study designProspective crossover experimental study. AnimalsA group of 12 healthy adult female Beagle dogs. MethodsDogs were premedicated with intravenous (IV) butorphanol (0.3 mg kg–1), and anesthesia was induced with etomidate following midazolam (0.3 mg kg–1), lidocaine (2 mg kg–1) or physiologic saline (1 mL) IV. Heart rate (HR), arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate (fR) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded following butorphanol, after co-induction administration, after etomidate administration and immediately following intubation. Baseline IOP values were also obtained prior to sedation. Etomidate dose requirements and the presence of myoclonus, as well as coughing or gagging during intubation were recorded. Serum cortisol concentrations were measured prior to premedication and 6 hours following etomidate administration. ResultsBlood pressure, fR and IOP were similar among treatments. Blood pressure decreased in all treatments following etomidate administration and generally returned to sedated values following intubation. HR increased following intubation with midazolam and lidocaine but remained stable in the saline treatment. The dose of etomidate (median, interquartile range, range) required for intubation was lower following midazolam (2.2, 2.1–2.6, 1.7–4.1 mg kg−1) compared with lidocaine (2.7, 2.4–3.6, 2.2–5.1 mg kg−1, p = 0.012) or saline (3.0, 2.8–3.8, 1.9–5.1 mg kg−1, p = 0.015). Coughing or gagging was less frequent with midazolam compared with saline. Myoclonus was not observed. Changes in serum cortisol concentrations were not different among treatments. Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam administration reduced etomidate dose requirements and improved intubation conditions compared with lidocaine or saline treatments. Neither co-induction agent caused clinically relevant differences in measured cardiopulmonary function, IOP or cortisol concentrations compared with saline in healthy dogs. Apnea was noted in all treatments following the induction of anesthesia and preoxygenation is recommended.