4.3 Article

Efficacy of intraperitoneal and intravenous lidocaine on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 307-319

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0300060513505493

关键词

Intraperitoneal; intravenous; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; lidocaine; postoperative pain

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012R1A1A1003700]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1A1003700] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated intraperitoneal (IP) lidocaine administration and intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods Patients who underwent LC were randomized to either group IV (intravenous lidocaine infusion), group IP (intraperitoneal lidocaine administration), or group C (control, IP and IV saline). Outcome measures were total postoperative pain severity (TPPS), total fentanyl consumption (TFC), frequency of administering patient-controlled analgesia (FPB), and a pain control satisfaction score (PCSS). Results Significantly reduced TPPS, TFC and FPB scores were observed in groups IP (n=22) and IV (n=26) compared with controls (n=24). PCSS was higher in groups IP and IV than in controls. At 2h postoperation, TPPS was significantly lower in group IP than group IV; at 0-2h postoperation, FPB was lower in group IP than group IV. Conclusions The IP administration of lidocaine and IV lidocaine infusion significantly reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption in LC patients, compared with control infusions. For convenience, IV lidocaine could be used for pain reduction following LC; IP administration places additional burden on the surgeon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据