↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion on Postoperative Analgesia and Recovery from Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
328 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Impact of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion on Postoperative Analgesia and Recovery from Surgery
Published in
Drugs, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/10898560-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grace C. McCarthy, Sohair A. Megalla, Ashraf S. Habib

Abstract

Postoperative pain continues to be inadequately managed. While opioids remain the mainstay for postoperative analgesia, their use can be associated with adverse effects, including ileus, which can prolong hospital stay. A number of studies have investigated the use of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion for improving postoperative analgesia and enhancing recovery of bowel function. This systematic review was performed to determine the overall efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative analgesia and recovery from surgery in patients undergoing various surgical procedures. We searched the databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from 1966 to December 2009. We searched for randomized controlled comparisons of lidocaine infusion with placebo in the surgical setting and reporting on postoperative analgesia and other aspects of patient recovery from surgery. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Modified Oxford Scale. Information on postoperative pain intensity and analgesic requirements was extracted from the trials and compared qualitatively. Other relevant data such as return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, intraoperative anaesthetic requirement and adverse effects were also compared. Sixteen trials were included. A total of 395 patients received intravenous lidocaine with 369 controls. In open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery, as well as in ambulatory surgery patients, intravenous perioperative infusion of lidocaine resulted in significant reductions in postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption. Pain scores were reduced at rest and with cough or movement for up to 48 hours postoperatively. Opioid consumption was reduced by up to 85% in lidocaine-treated patients when compared with controls. Infusion of lidocaine also resulted in earlier return of bowel function, allowing for earlier rehabilitation and shorter duration of hospital stay. First flatus occurred up to 23 hours earlier, while first bowel movement occurred up to 28 hours earlier in the lidocaine-treated patients. Duration of hospital stay was reduced by an average of 1.1 days in the lidocaine-treated patients. Administration of intravenous lidocaine infusion did not result in toxicity or clinically significant adverse events. Lidocaine had no impact on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing tonsillectomy, total hip arthroplasty or coronary artery bypass surgery. In conclusion, intravenous lidocaine infusion in the perioperative period is safe and has clear advantages in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Patients receiving lidocaine infusion had lower pain scores, reduced postoperative analgesic requirements and decreased intraoperative anaesthetic requirements, as well as faster return of bowel function and decreased length of hospital stay. Further studies are needed to assess whether lidocaine has a beneficial effect in patients undergoing other types of surgery and to determine the optimum dose, timing and duration of infusion of lidocaine in this setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 275 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 44 15%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Postgraduate 26 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Other 78 27%
Unknown 62 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 169 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 2%
Other 17 6%
Unknown 77 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,268
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,591
of 188,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#523
of 1,509 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 188,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,509 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.