Jayaprabhu Namitha Birur, Avula Jyothi, Chandy Tony T, Varghese Gigi, Yadav Bijesh, Rebekah Grace
Department of Anaesthesiology, Christian Medical College Vellore, vellore, IND.
Anaesthetics, New Cross Hospital, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Cureus. 2022 Apr 2;14(4):e23758. doi: 10.7759/cureus.23758. eCollection 2022 Apr.
Background Protocols for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) have been constantly evolving, and the best method of managing perioperative pain, especially in laparoscopic surgeries, is still debatable. The primary goal of these protocols is to steer toward opioid-sparing analgesia. Intravenous lidocaine, which has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, may improve the overall recovery of patients. Objectives The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusion (IVL) with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in the management of perioperative pain and recovery in the laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery. Methods In this study, 37 patients were randomized to either the IVL group or the TEA group. IVL infusion was started before the surgical incision and stopped 30 minutes after transferring the patient to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, rescue analgesic doses, quality of recovery scores, time to discharge, and adverse events were recorded prospectively. Data were analyzed using two independent sample t-test and paired t-test, with p < 0.05 taken as statistically significant. Results The mean difference of overall NRS (numerical rating scale) pain scores in the ward was significantly higher in the IVL group as compared to the TEA group, which was 3.58 (2.29) vs 2.23 1.95) (p < 0.001). The IVL group required more mean rescue opioid boluses than the TEA group, which was 11.36 (8.684) vs 5.96 (6.215) (p < 0.001). However, both IVL and TEA groups had similar pain scores intraoperatively and in the PACU. Conclusions TEA provides better analgesia and decreased opioid requirements compared to intravenous lidocaine during the 24-hour period in the ward after laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery, although there was no difference in the quality of recovery between IVL and TEA groups.
背景 手术后加速康复(ERAS)方案一直在不断发展,围手术期疼痛的最佳管理方法,尤其是在腹腔镜手术中,仍存在争议。这些方案的主要目标是转向减少阿片类药物的镇痛。具有镇痛和抗炎特性的静脉注射利多卡因可能会改善患者的整体恢复情况。目的 本随机对照试验的目的是比较静脉注射利多卡因输注(IVL)与胸段硬膜外镇痛(TEA)在腹腔镜左侧结肠和保留括约肌的直肠手术围手术期疼痛管理和恢复方面的疗效。方法 在本研究中,37例患者被随机分为IVL组或TEA组。IVL输注在手术切口前开始,并在患者转入麻醉后护理单元(PACU)30分钟后停止。前瞻性记录术后疼痛评分、阿片类药物消耗量、补救镇痛剂量、恢复质量评分、出院时间和不良事件。数据采用两独立样本t检验和配对t检验进行分析,以p<0.05为具有统计学意义。结果 与TEA组相比,IVL组病房内总体数字评定量表(NRS)疼痛评分的平均差异显著更高,分别为3.58(2.29)和2.23(1.95)(p<0.001)。IVL组比TEA组需要更多的平均补救阿片类药物推注量,分别为11.36(8.684)和5.96(6.215)(p<0.001)。然而,IVL组和TEA组在术中及PACU的疼痛评分相似。结论 在腹腔镜左侧结肠和保留括约肌的直肠手术后的24小时内,与静脉注射利多卡因相比,TEA提供了更好的镇痛效果并减少了阿片类药物的需求,尽管IVL组和TEA组在恢复质量方面没有差异。