Martin F, Cherif K, Gentili ME, Enel D, Abe E, Alvarez JC, Mazoit JX, Chauvin M, Bouhassira D, Fletcher D. Lack of impact of intravenous lidocaine on analgesia, functional recovery, and nociceptive pain threshold after total hip arthroplasty

Service Pharmacologie Toxicologie, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, Garches, France.
Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 5.88). 08/2008; 109(1):118-23. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31817b5a9b
Source: PubMed


The analgesic effect of perioperative low doses of intravenous lidocaine has been demonstrated after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to evaluate whether a continuous intravenous low-dose lidocaine infusion reduced postoperative pain and modified nociceptive pain threshold after total hip arthroplasty.
Sixty patients participated in this randomized double-blinded study. Patients received lidocaine 1% (lidocaine group) with a 1.5 mg/kg intravenous bolus in 10 min followed by a 1.5 mg . kg . h intravenous infusion or saline (control group). These regimens were started 30 min before surgical incision and stopped 1h after skin closure. Lidocaine blood concentrations were measured at the end of administration. In both groups, postoperative analgesia was provided exclusively by patient-controlled intravenous morphine. Pain scores, morphine consumption, and operative hip flexion were recorded over 48 h. In addition, pressure pain thresholds and the extent of hyperalgesia around surgical incision were systematically measured at 24 and 48 h.
In comparison with the placebo, lidocaine did not induce any opioid-sparing effect during the first 24 h (median [25-75% interquartile range]; 17 mg [9-28] vs. 15 mg [8-23]; P = 0.54). There was no significant difference regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on pain score, pressure pain thresholds, extent in the area of hyperalgesia, and maximal degree of active hip flexion tolerated. Mean plasma lidocaine concentration was 2.1 +/- 0.4 mug/ml.
Low dose perioperative intravenous lidocaine after total hip arthroplasty offers no beneficial effect on postoperative analgesia and does not modify pressure and tactile pain thresholds.

Download full-text


Available from: Frédéric Martin, Jan 09, 2014
    • "The median cumulative doses of I.V. morphine given as titration in the PACU were 0 and 6 mg [0-9] in the Lidocaine and Reference groups respectively (P < 0.001). Median cumulative morphine consumption at the end of post-operative day 2 was 8.5 mg [4-17] in the Lidocaine group and 25 mg[1920212223242526272829303132] in the Reference group (P < 0.0001) [Figure 1]. Pain intensity was significantly reduced in the Lidocaine group both at rest and during coughing (P < 0.0001) throughout the 48-h study [Figure 2]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and Aims: Intravenous (I.V.) lidocaine has analgesic, antihyperalgesic and anti-inflammatory properties and is known to accelerate the return of bowel function after surgery. We evaluated the effects of I.V. lidocaine on pain management and acute rehabilitation protocol after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Materials and Methods: A total of 47 patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic nephrectomy were included in a two-phase observational study where I.V. lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg/h) was introduced, in the second phase, during surgery and for 24 h post-operatively. All patients underwent the same post-operative rehabilitation program. Post-operative pain scores, opioid consumption and extent of hyperalgesia were measured. Time to first flatus and 6 min walking test (6MWT) were recorded. Results: Patient demographics were similar in the two phases (n = 22 in each group). Lidocaine significantly reduced morphine consumption (median [25-75% interquartile range]; 8.5 mg[4567891011121314151617] vs. 25 mg[1920212223242526272829303132]; P < 0.0001), post-operative pain scores (P < 0.05) and hyperalgesia extent on post-operative day 1-day 2-day 4 (mean ± standard deviation (SD); 1.5 ± 0.9 vs. 4.3 ± 1.2 cm (P < 0.001), 0.6 ± 0.5 vs. 2.8 ± 1.2 cm (P < 0.001) and 0.13 ± 0.3 vs. 1.2 ± 1 cm (P < 0.001), respectively). Time to first flatus (mean ± SD; 29 ± 7 h vs. 48 ± 15 h; P < 0.001) and 6MWT at day 4 (189 ± 50 m vs. 151 ± 53 m; P < 0.001) were significantly enhanced in patients with i.v. lidocaine. Conclusion: Intravenous (I.V.) lidocaine could reduce post-operative morphine consumption and improve post-operative pain management and post-operative recovery after laparoscopic nephrectomy. I.V. lidocaine could contribute to better post-operative rehabilitation.
    Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology 07/2014; 30(3):366-72. DOI:10.4103/0970-9185.137269
  • Source
    • "As a sodium channel blocker, systemic lidocaine attenuates skin pain in response to mechanical or chemical stimuli through peripheral and central mechanisms in preclinical human volunteer tests [10-12]. However, although the perioperative administration of lidocaine can prevent postoperative pain from various abdominal surgeries, the use of a low dose of lidocaine was not successful on the improvement of postoperative pain control and narcotic reduction in a recent study involving total hip arthroplasty [13]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Perioperative lidocaine infusion improves postoperative outcomes, mostly after abdominal and urologic surgeries. Knowledge of the effect of lidocaine on peripheral surgeries is limited. Presently, we investigated whether intraoperative lidocaine infusion reduced anesthetic consumption, duration of ileus, pain intensity, analgesic consumption and hospital stay after breast plastic surgeries. Sixty female patients, aged 20-60 years, enrolled in this prospective study were randomly and equally divided to two groups. One group (n = 30) received a 1.5 mg/kg bolus of lidocaine approximately 30 min before incision followed by continuous infusion of lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg/h) until skin closure (lidocaine group). The other group (n = 30) was untreated (control group). Balanced inhalation (sevoflurane) anesthesia and multimodal postoperative analgesia were standardized. End tidal sevoflurane concentration during surgery, time to the first flatus and defecation, visual analog pain scale (0-10), analgesic consumption and associated side effects at 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery, hospital stay, and patient's general satisfaction were assessed. Compared to the control group, intraoperative lidocaine infusion reduced by 5% the amount of sevoflurane required at similar bispectral index (P = 0.014). However, there were no significant effects of lidocaine regarding the return of bowel function, postoperative pain intensity, analgesic sparing and side effects at all time points, hospital stay, and level of patient's satisfaction for pain control. Low dose intraoperative lidocaine infusion offered no beneficial effects on return of bowel function, opioid sparing, pain intensity and hospital stay after various breast plastic surgeries.
    Korean journal of anesthesiology 05/2012; 62(5):429-34. DOI:10.4097/kjae.2012.62.5.429
  • Source
    • "The clinical effect of intravenous lidocaine has been investigated in a number of other conditions, including post herpetic neuralgia [15]; neuropathic pain [16] [17]; post total hip arthroplasty [6]; neuropathic cancer pain [18]; post amputation pain [19]; chronic daily head ache and status migrainosus [13]; and post abdominal surgery [10,5], with variable reported efficacy. Studies have used different regimes and dosages. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain is a major issue for patients with severe burn. High dose intravenous opioids form the mainstay of procedural burns pain management; however it was suggested that intravenous lidocaine assists with minimising the pain experience. This study aimed to evaluate whether intravenous lidocaine improved analgesic efficacy and decreased opioid consumption during a burn wound care procedure. A prospective double-blind randomized crossover study compared intravenous lidocaine versus placebo alongside patient controlled analgesia (PCA) in 45 patients with severe burn undergoing wound care procedures (i.e. dressing change±debridement) on two consecutive days. Subjects were randomised to either the intervention or control condition on the first dressing day, and received the alternate condition on the second dressing day. During the intervention condition, subjects received lidocaine of 1.5 mg/kg/body weight followed by two boluses of 0.5 mg/kg at 5-min intervals followed by a continuous infusion. During the control condition, 0.9% sodium chloride was administered at an equivalent volume, dose and rate to that of lidocaine. Primary end points included pain intensity as measured by verbal rating scale (VRS), time to rescue analgesia, opioid requests and consumption and overall anxiety and level of satisfaction. Changes in the VRS score was significantly lower for lidocaine [difference (95% CI)=0.36 (0.17-0.55)] as compared to placebo. However, there were no significant clinical or statistical differences regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on opioid requests and consumption, anxiety or level of satisfaction during the first and second dressing procedures. In this study, the clinical benefit of intravenous lidocaine for pain relief during burn wound dressing changes in terms of overall pain scores and opioid consumption was unremarkable. Further investigations using different lidocaine regimes for the management of procedural burn pain are warranted.
    Burns: journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 04/2011; 37(6):951-7. DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2011.03.004 · 1.88 Impact Factor
Show more