腹部手术后静脉注射或腹膜内注射利多卡因镇痛效果的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain physician Pub Date : 2024-03-01
Yanmei Bi, Min Diao, Yunkai Tao, Hao Li, Xuemei Lin
{"title":"腹部手术后静脉注射或腹膜内注射利多卡因镇痛效果的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。","authors":"Yanmei Bi, Min Diao, Yunkai Tao, Hao Li, Xuemei Lin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reducing postoperative pain is still a tremendous challenge for perioperative clinicians. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that belongs to the amide class and has anti-inflammatory, anti-hyperalgesic, and analgesic effects. Extensive research has been conducted to determine the optimal route for its administration.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy of perioperative intravenous lidocaine with that of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>EMBASE, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published through December 2022 that compared patients receiving perioperative intravenous lidocaine with those receiving intraperitoneal lidocaine. The primary outcome measures included the pain score, as evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale, and opioid analgesia requirements. The secondary outcome measures were hospitalization length, gastrointestinal function recovery, etc. The data were acquired and recorded in electronic spreadsheets that had been designed for this purpose.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review's design was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to examine the certainty of the evidence. Furthermore, we examined the dependability of the calculated (favorable) treatment effects through considerations of information size and modified significance thresholds (trial sequential analysis).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven trials including 478 patients were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that compared with intravenous lidocaine, patients who received intraperitoneal lidocaine had lower pain scores at 4 hours (mean difference [MD] 1.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 2.59); 12 hours (MD 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30); and 24 hours (MD -0.12; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.17) postsurgery. However, no obvious difference in opioid consumption (P > 0.05) was found. In addition, the intraperitoneal lidocaine group had a longer postsurgery hospital stay than the intravenous lidocaine group (95%CI, -0.17 to -0.00; I2 = 0%). Intravenous lidocaine was more beneficial for achieving gastrointestinal return than intraperitoneal lidocaine (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.10; I2 = 2%).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The sample size of enrolled RCTs was small, which could potentially result in an overestimation or underestimation of the treatment effect in the collected data. There was high heterogeneity among the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that post-abdominal surgery intraperitoneal lidocaine administration has a better analgesic effect than intravenous lidocaine, with a lower pain score. However, intravenous lidocaine is more beneficial for gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Analgesic Effects of Lidocaine Administered Intravenously or Intraperitoneally Post-Abdominal Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Yanmei Bi, Min Diao, Yunkai Tao, Hao Li, Xuemei Lin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reducing postoperative pain is still a tremendous challenge for perioperative clinicians. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that belongs to the amide class and has anti-inflammatory, anti-hyperalgesic, and analgesic effects. Extensive research has been conducted to determine the optimal route for its administration.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy of perioperative intravenous lidocaine with that of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>EMBASE, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published through December 2022 that compared patients receiving perioperative intravenous lidocaine with those receiving intraperitoneal lidocaine. The primary outcome measures included the pain score, as evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale, and opioid analgesia requirements. The secondary outcome measures were hospitalization length, gastrointestinal function recovery, etc. The data were acquired and recorded in electronic spreadsheets that had been designed for this purpose.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review's design was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to examine the certainty of the evidence. Furthermore, we examined the dependability of the calculated (favorable) treatment effects through considerations of information size and modified significance thresholds (trial sequential analysis).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven trials including 478 patients were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that compared with intravenous lidocaine, patients who received intraperitoneal lidocaine had lower pain scores at 4 hours (mean difference [MD] 1.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 2.59); 12 hours (MD 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30); and 24 hours (MD -0.12; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.17) postsurgery. However, no obvious difference in opioid consumption (P > 0.05) was found. In addition, the intraperitoneal lidocaine group had a longer postsurgery hospital stay than the intravenous lidocaine group (95%CI, -0.17 to -0.00; I2 = 0%). Intravenous lidocaine was more beneficial for achieving gastrointestinal return than intraperitoneal lidocaine (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.10; I2 = 2%).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The sample size of enrolled RCTs was small, which could potentially result in an overestimation or underestimation of the treatment effect in the collected data. There was high heterogeneity among the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that post-abdominal surgery intraperitoneal lidocaine administration has a better analgesic effect than intravenous lidocaine, with a lower pain score. However, intravenous lidocaine is more beneficial for gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain physician\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain physician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:减轻术后疼痛仍然是围手术期临床医生面临的巨大挑战。利多卡因是一种局麻药,属于酰胺类,具有抗炎、抗过敏和镇痛作用。为确定其最佳给药途径,已进行了大量研究:比较围术期静脉注射利多卡因与腹腔注射利多卡因对腹部手术患者术后镇痛的疗效:在 EMBASE、PubMed 和 Cochrane 图书馆中检索了截至 2022 年 12 月发表的随机对照试验,这些试验比较了围手术期静脉注射利多卡因和腹腔注射利多卡因的患者。主要结果指标包括视觉模拟量表评估的疼痛评分和阿片类镇痛需求。次要结果指标包括住院时间、胃肠功能恢复情况等。数据均在为此设计的电子表格中获取和记录:本系统综述的设计以《科克伦干预措施系统综述手册》为基础,并按照《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)声明进行报告。推荐、评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)用于检查证据的确定性。此外,我们还通过考虑信息量和修正的显著性阈值(试验序列分析)来检查计算出的(有利)治疗效果的可靠性:结果:共纳入七项试验,包括 478 名患者。我们的荟萃分析表明,与静脉注射利多卡因相比,接受腹腔注射利多卡因的患者在术后 4 小时(平均差 [MD] 1.40;95% CI,0.22 至 2.59)、12 小时(MD 0.18;95% CI,0.06 至 0.30)和 24 小时(MD -0.12;95% CI -0.40 至 0.17)的疼痛评分较低。不过,阿片类药物的消耗量并无明显差异(P > 0.05)。此外,腹腔注射利多卡因组术后住院时间长于静脉注射利多卡因组(95%CI,-0.17 至 -0.00;I2 = 0%)。静脉注射利多卡因比腹腔注射利多卡因更有利于实现胃肠道功能恢复(95%CI,-0.26至-0.10;I2 = 2%):局限性:参与研究的临床试验样本量较小,这可能会导致所收集数据中的治疗效果被高估或低估。研究之间的异质性较高:这项荟萃分析表明,腹部手术后腹腔注射利多卡因比静脉注射利多卡因镇痛效果更好,疼痛评分更低。然而,静脉注射利多卡因更有利于腹部手术后胃肠道的恢复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Analgesic Effects of Lidocaine Administered Intravenously or Intraperitoneally Post-Abdominal Surgery.

Background: Reducing postoperative pain is still a tremendous challenge for perioperative clinicians. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that belongs to the amide class and has anti-inflammatory, anti-hyperalgesic, and analgesic effects. Extensive research has been conducted to determine the optimal route for its administration.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of perioperative intravenous lidocaine with that of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

Study design: EMBASE, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published through December 2022 that compared patients receiving perioperative intravenous lidocaine with those receiving intraperitoneal lidocaine. The primary outcome measures included the pain score, as evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale, and opioid analgesia requirements. The secondary outcome measures were hospitalization length, gastrointestinal function recovery, etc. The data were acquired and recorded in electronic spreadsheets that had been designed for this purpose.

Methods: This systematic review's design was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to examine the certainty of the evidence. Furthermore, we examined the dependability of the calculated (favorable) treatment effects through considerations of information size and modified significance thresholds (trial sequential analysis).

Results: Seven trials including 478 patients were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that compared with intravenous lidocaine, patients who received intraperitoneal lidocaine had lower pain scores at 4 hours (mean difference [MD] 1.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 2.59); 12 hours (MD 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30); and 24 hours (MD -0.12; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.17) postsurgery. However, no obvious difference in opioid consumption (P > 0.05) was found. In addition, the intraperitoneal lidocaine group had a longer postsurgery hospital stay than the intravenous lidocaine group (95%CI, -0.17 to -0.00; I2 = 0%). Intravenous lidocaine was more beneficial for achieving gastrointestinal return than intraperitoneal lidocaine (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.10; I2 = 2%).

Limitations: The sample size of enrolled RCTs was small, which could potentially result in an overestimation or underestimation of the treatment effect in the collected data. There was high heterogeneity among the studies.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that post-abdominal surgery intraperitoneal lidocaine administration has a better analgesic effect than intravenous lidocaine, with a lower pain score. However, intravenous lidocaine is more beneficial for gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
期刊最新文献
Delineating the Hurtful, Engaging, Emotive, and Directive (HEED) Dimensions of Pain. Characterization for Clinical Relevance. Effectiveness Analysis of Awake Computed Tomography-Guided Double-Needle Percutaneous Radiofrequency Thermocoagulation for the Treatment of Glossopharyngeal Neuralgia. Efficacy Analysis of Temporary Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Refractory Postherpetic Neuralgia. Erector Spinae Plane Block Provided Comparable Analgesia as Thoracic Paravertebral Block Post Pediatric Nuss Procedure for Pectus Excavatum: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Extended vs. Traditional Operating Table in C-Arm-Guided Percutaneous Balloon Compression of the Gasserian Ganglion for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Prospective Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1