Comparative Effectiveness of Epidural Analgesia and Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain in Major Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/anrp/9822744
Mohammad Jawwad, Dawar Nadeem Aslam Dar, Rana Faheem Ullah Khan, Aizaz Chaudhry, Faraz Arkam, Asad Gul Rao, Yusra Mir, Mohammad Maheer Mubashir, Aqsa Mir, Haider Imran, Umar Maqbool, Pierina Clementine Pereira
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Epidural Analgesia and Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain in Major Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Mohammad Jawwad, Dawar Nadeem Aslam Dar, Rana Faheem Ullah Khan, Aizaz Chaudhry, Faraz Arkam, Asad Gul Rao, Yusra Mir, Mohammad Maheer Mubashir, Aqsa Mir, Haider Imran, Umar Maqbool, Pierina Clementine Pereira","doi":"10.1155/anrp/9822744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Pain management is an integral part of recovery after major abdominal surgeries. Traditionally, epidural analgesia is used for postoperative pain management in major abdominal surgeries. However, intravenous lidocaine has recently been proven to be a good alternative. However, there is very limited evidence comparing their efficacy in major abdominal surgery. The aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of epidural analgesia with intravenous lidocaine in reducing pain and opioid consumption following major abdominal surgery. <b>Methods:</b> We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2024 to identify studies that match our topic. We performed all statistical analyses using RevMan. The primary outcome was pain scores. The other outcomes were opioid requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting, hospital stay duration, and time to pass flatus. <b>Results:</b> Seven studies (six randomized clinical trials and one observational study; <i>n</i> = 643) were included. Our results suggest that epidural bupivacaine significantly reduced pain scores during the first 24 h postoperatively as compared with the patients who received intravenous lidocaine (Std. mean difference: -0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.40, -0.06; and <i>p</i>=0.008). There was no difference at 48 h (Std. mean difference: -0.09; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.08; and <i>p</i>=0.028) and 72 h intervals (Std. mean difference: -0.08; 95% CI: -0.25, 0.09; and <i>p</i>=0.037). <b>Conclusion:</b> Our study shows that epidural analgesia, particularly epidural bupivacaine, provides superior pain relief as compared to intravenous lidocaine during the first 24 h postoperatively. However, there was heterogeneity among studies. Thus, in future, large standardized randomized controlled trials are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":"2025 ","pages":"9822744"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11991782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/9822744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pain management is an integral part of recovery after major abdominal surgeries. Traditionally, epidural analgesia is used for postoperative pain management in major abdominal surgeries. However, intravenous lidocaine has recently been proven to be a good alternative. However, there is very limited evidence comparing their efficacy in major abdominal surgery. The aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of epidural analgesia with intravenous lidocaine in reducing pain and opioid consumption following major abdominal surgery. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2024 to identify studies that match our topic. We performed all statistical analyses using RevMan. The primary outcome was pain scores. The other outcomes were opioid requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting, hospital stay duration, and time to pass flatus. Results: Seven studies (six randomized clinical trials and one observational study; n = 643) were included. Our results suggest that epidural bupivacaine significantly reduced pain scores during the first 24 h postoperatively as compared with the patients who received intravenous lidocaine (Std. mean difference: -0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.40, -0.06; and p=0.008). There was no difference at 48 h (Std. mean difference: -0.09; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.08; and p=0.028) and 72 h intervals (Std. mean difference: -0.08; 95% CI: -0.25, 0.09; and p=0.037). Conclusion: Our study shows that epidural analgesia, particularly epidural bupivacaine, provides superior pain relief as compared to intravenous lidocaine during the first 24 h postoperatively. However, there was heterogeneity among studies. Thus, in future, large standardized randomized controlled trials are required.

硬膜外镇痛与静脉注射利多卡因治疗腹部大手术术后疼痛的比较效果:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:疼痛管理是腹部大手术后恢复的重要组成部分。传统上,硬膜外镇痛用于腹部大手术的术后疼痛管理。然而,静脉注射利多卡因最近被证明是一个很好的选择。然而,比较它们在腹部大手术中的疗效的证据非常有限。本综述的目的是比较硬膜外镇痛与静脉注射利多卡因在减少腹部大手术后疼痛和阿片类药物消耗方面的有效性。方法:我们检索PubMed和Cochrane图书馆从成立到2024年5月,以确定符合我们主题的研究。我们使用RevMan进行了所有的统计分析。主要结果是疼痛评分。其他结果为阿片类药物需要量、术后恶心和呕吐、住院时间和排气时间。结果:7项研究(6项随机临床试验和1项观察性研究;N = 643)。我们的研究结果表明,与静脉注射利多卡因的患者相比,硬膜外布比卡因在术后24小时内显著降低了疼痛评分(平均差值:-0.23;95%置信区间[CI]: -0.40, -0.06;和p = 0.008)。48 h无差异(平均差异:-0.09;95% ci: -0.27, 0.08;和p=0.028)和72 h间隔(平均差值:-0.08;95% ci: -0.25, 0.09;和p = 0.037)。结论:我们的研究表明,与静脉注射利多卡因相比,硬膜外镇痛,特别是硬膜外布比卡因,在术后24小时内提供了更好的疼痛缓解。然而,研究之间存在异质性。因此,未来需要大规模的标准化随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信