Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2020 Nov 25;99(48):e23332. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023332

Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine for patients undergoing spine surgery

A meta-analysis and systematic review

Yaodan Bi a, Yu Ye a, Jun Ma a, Zerong Tian b, Xiuqian Zhang b, Bin Liu c,∗
Editor: Ibtesam Hilmi
PMCID: PMC7710210  PMID: 33235097

Abstract

Background:

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine has been reported to have analgesic and opioid-sparing effects in many kinds of surgery. Several studies have evaluated its use in the settings of spine surgery. The aim of the study is to examine the effect of intravenous lidocaine in patients undergoing spine surgery.

Methods:

We performed a quantitative systematic review. Databases of PubMed, Medline, Embase database and Cochrane library were investigated for eligible literatures from their establishments to June, 2019. Articles of randomized controlled trials that compared intravenous lidocaine to a control group in patients undergoing spine surgery were included. The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative opioid consumption and the length of hospital stay.

Result:

Four randomized controlled trials with 275 patients were included in the study. postoperative pain compared with control was reduced at 6 hours after surgery (WMD −0.50, 95%CI, −0.76 to −0.25, P < .001), at 24 hours after surgery (WMD −0.50, 95%CI, −0.70 to −0.29, P < .001) and at 48 hours after surgery (WMD −0.57, 95%CI, −0.96 to −0.17, P = .005). The effect of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative opioid consumption compared with control revealed a significant effect (WMD −15.36, 95%CI, −21.40 to −9.33 mg intravenous morphine equivalents, P < .001).

Conclusion:

This quantitative analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the perioperative intravenous lidocaine was effective for reducing postoperative opioid consumption and pain in patients undergoing spine surgery. The intravenous lidocaine should be considered as an effective adjunct to improve analgesic outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery. However, the quantity of the studies was very low, more research is needed.

Keywords: intravenous lidocaine, multi-model analgesia, spine surgery

1. Introduction

Spine surgery is known to be extremely painful, and postoperative pain is usually hard to control.[1] The uncontrolled postoperative pain is associated with worsened functional recovery, delayed early ambulation, and prolonged hospital stay,[2,3] it may also develop into chronic pain in the long term.[3] Opioids are fundamental for the postoperative analgesia,[1,4] however, their administration may cause adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, and pruritus,[1,4] so multi-model analgesia has been recommended to reduce the consumption of opioid.[3] Lidocaine was developed in 1948 as a local anesthetic,[5] systematic administration of lidocaine has the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effect and has been proved to be effective as an adjuvant in postoperative pain management of major abdominal surgery.[5] Several studies have reported its use in the settings of spine surgery,[1,6] but their conclusions seem to be contradictory and need to be analyzed. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the role of lidocaine in reducing the pain and opioid consumption after spine surgery.

2. Method

2.1. Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase database and Cochrane library (between January 1985 and June 2019) using the following terms: “spine”,“surgery ”and “lidocaine”, No language restriction was applied. Randomized controlled studies of any size that compared lidocaine with placebo for patients undergoing spine surgery and took the pain or morphine consumption as a primary or secondary outcome, and were published in full in peer-reviewed journals, were included. We excluded studies if they

  • 1)

    were not RCTs,

  • 2)

    did not compare lidocaine and placebo

  • 3)

    did not mention the perioperative use of lidocaine to prevent postoperative pain

  • 4)

    did not include patients undergoing spine surgery

  • 5)

    had not been published or only the abstracts were presented in a conference.

2.2. Method of review

Each article was reviewed by 2 independent researchers who use the double-extraction method for meeting our inclusion criteria. A consensus procedure was conducted for study inclusion through discussion. If the consensus was not reached, a third reviewer would make a judgement before the final analysis. Two researchers were in charge of the data extraction work. The following information was recorded: the first author, the publication time, study design, study name, participant characteristics, outcome measures, surgical procedure, time of follow-up, pain score [time, mean, and standard deviation (SD)], lidocaine administration characteristics, postoperative analgesic administration and endpoints of each study. Groups (≤6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after the surgery) were divided according to the contents of included studies. Numerical rating scale of pain or visual analog scale was adapted to an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 = no pain, 10 = extreme pain). Postoperative opioids were transformed to the equianalgesic dose of intravenous morphine assuming no cross-tolerance. When the same outcomes were reported more than once, the most conservative value was used. The quality of the RCTs was assessed with the use of the Cochrane Collaboration's recommended tool by 2 reviewers.

The primary outcome was patients’ self-reported level of pain intensity on 0–10 pain scales such as visual analog scales (VAS), numerical rating scales (NRS), and other validated pain scales. The secondary endpoints were defined as the opioid-sparing effect of perioperative use of lidocaine and the length of hospital stay.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Continuous data were analyzed using weight mean differences (WMDs) and their 95%CIs for combining various scales. Data provided as mean and standard deviation were extracted. Data provided as standard error were transformed to standard deviation through the formula: SD = SE (standard error)∗ ✓ n (n = sample size). Data provided as 25% and 75% percentiles or 95%CI were transformed to standard deviation through the formula described by Hazo et al.[7] For dichotomous data, RR with 95%CI were estimated. The heterogeneity among these included studies was evaluated by I2 statistics, random effect model was applied when there was high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) across the studies, whereas significant heterogeneity was not observed across the studies (I2 ≤ 50%), fixed effect model was applied. Publication bias was examined by Egger test. All statistical was executed by stata15.1. Statistical significance was represented by P < .05.

2.4. Ethics approval and consent to participate

No patients or members of public were involved in the present study. No patients were asked to advise on the interpretation or writing up of results. The results of the present research will be communicated to the relevant patient community.

3. Result

We identified 507 studies in the initial literature research. Based on the inclusion criteria, 498 studies were excluded, with a selection of 9 studies for a more detailed review. 5 studies were subsequently excluded, including 1 observational study, leaving 4 randomized controlled trials (Fig. 1). Finally, 4 randomized controlled trials were included for meta-analysis.[1,6,8,9] There were 137 patients in the lidocaine group and 138 patients in the control group. Characteristics of each study are presented in Table 1. Their methodological quality is presented in the Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Article selection flow chart.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included study.

Author Country Year Study Type n Time of Administration Time of Observation Primary outcome Secondary outcome Key message
Farag et al The United States 2013 RCT 115 Intravenous lidocaine (2 mg kg-1 h-1) with maximum of 200 mg/h starting at induction of anesthesia and continuing until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) or a maximum of 8 h Pain was evaluated with verbal response scores (0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain) at 30-min intervals while in the postanesthesia care unit, and every 4–6 h, thereafter. Verbal response scores Opioid consumption, quality of life Lidocaine administration to patients undergoing complex spine operations reduced pain but not opioid requirements early in the postoperative period
Dewinter et al Belgium 2017 RCT 69 Patients in the lidocaine-group were given an IV bolus injection of lidocaine 1.5 mg kg-1 at induction of anesthesia and then a continuous infusion of 1.5 mg ·kg-1·h-1 which was continued until 6 h after arrival at the PACU Postoperative pain as evaluated with the numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and coughing, assessed each 15 min the first two hours postoperatively at the PACU, every h during the following 22 hours, and once daily on day 2 and 3 Morphine requirements during the first 24h postoperatively Postoperative pain, PONV, inflammatory response, time to recovery of bowel function, length of hospital stay, quality of life Systemic lidocaine had no analgesic benefits in posterior arthrodesis when added to an opioid based anesthetic regimen.
Ibrahim et al Egypt 2018 RCT 40 Lidocaine group patients received a loading dose of IV lidocaine 2mg/kg slowly just before induction of anesthesia, then the lidocaine infusion started at a rate of 3mg/kg/h Postoperative pain evaluation during rest was assessed by VAS (visual analogue scale). The score was recorded at the following times: immediately at 1 hour, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, at discharge time, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after surgery. Visual analogue scale The total dose of rescue analgesia (morphine) Intra-operative lidocaine, when given intravenously as a bolus followed by an infusion, significantly decreased long term postoperative back pain intensity in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery
Kim et al South Korea 2013 RCT 51 Patients assigned to Group Lidocaine received an IV bolus injection of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h Postoperative pain evaluation during rest was assessed by VAS (visual analogue scale). The score was recorded at the following times: at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery The VAS (0–100 mm) pain score at 4 hours after surgery The VAS pain score at 2, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery, the frequency that patients pushed the button (FPB) of the PCA system, and the fentanyl consumption at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery Intraoperative systemic infusion of lidocaine decreases pain perception during microdiscectomy, thus reducing the consumption of opioid and the severity of postoperative pain. This effect contributes to reduce the length of HS.
Open in a new tab

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias summary.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias graph.

3.1. Postoperative pain ≤ 6 hours after surgery

There was moderate heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 34.4%, P = .206). The pooled data from 4 studies investigating the effect of perioperative lidocaine on the postoperative pain at 6 hours after the surgery showed a statistically significant effect in fixed-effect models (WMD −0.50, 95%CI, −0.76 to −0.25, z = 3.84, P < .001, Fig. 4). Result of the Egger test for the postoperative pain at 6 hours after surgery (P = .68) suggested that any publication bias across included studies was unlikely.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of pain scores in 0 to 6 hours after surgery.

3.2. Postoperative pain at 24 hours after surgery

There was no significant heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 24.7%, P = .263). The pooled data from 4 studies investigating the effect of perioperative lidocaine on the postoperative pain at 24 hours after surgery showed a statistically significant effect in fixed-effect models (WMD −0.50, 95%CI, −0.70 to −0.29, z = 4.65, P < .001, Fig. 5). Result of the Egger test for the postoperative pain at 24 hours after surgery (P = .20) suggested that any publication bias across included studies was unlikely.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of pain scores at 24 hours after surgery.

3.3. Postoperative pain at 48 hours after surgery

There was statistically high heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 74.2%, P = .009). The pooled data from 4 studies investigating the effect of perioperative lidocaine on the postoperative pain at 48 hours after surgery showed a statistically significant effect in random-effect models (WMD −0.57, 95%CI, −0.96 to −0.17, z = 2.85, P = .005, Fig. 6). Result of the Egger test for the postoperative pain at 48 hours after surgery (P = .15) suggested that any publication bias across included studies was unlikely. Sensitivity analysis by removing individual studies did not reduce the heterogeneity substantially.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of pain scores at 48 hours after surgery.

3.4. Opioid-sparing effect

Four studies investigated the opioid-sparing effect of perioperative lidocaine, 2 studies reported the opioid consumption during the first 24 hours after surgery,[6,8] 2 studies reported the opioid consumption during the first 48 hours after surgery.[1,9] There was high heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 67.2%, P = 0.027), heterogeneity existed in the 24-hour group (I2 = 79.6%, P = .027). In random-effect models, the pooled data showed perioperative lidocaine had statistically significant effect on reducing the postoperative opioid consumption (WMD –15.36, 95%CI, –21.40 to –9.33, z = 4.99, P < .001; Fig. 7). Result of the Egger test for the opioid consumption after surgery (P = .69) suggested that any publication bias across included studies was unlikely. The sensitivity analysis suggested that the heterogeneity was reduced significantly by removing Dewinter et al study (I2 = 0%, P = .41).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of opioid consumption.

3.5. Length of hospital stay

The hospital stay was collected from 4 studies. There was high heterogeneity among the trails (I2 = 71.8%, P = .014). In random-effect models, no significant difference was observed between the lidocaine and the control group (WMD –0.53, 95%CI, –1.30 to 0.23, z = 1.37, P = .172, Fig. 8). Result of the Egger test for the length of hospital stay (P = .65) suggested that any publication bias across included studies was unlikely.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of length of hospital stay.

4. Discussion

As far as we know, this is the first meta-analysis and systematic review focusing on the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine in spine surgery. Our pooled data showed that perioperative intravenous lidocaine attenuated the pain intensity at 6, 24, and 48 hours after the surgery and reduced opioid consumption. Our finding suggested that perioperative intravenous lidocaine could be an effective multi-modal analgesia adjunct for acute pain management in patients undergoing spine surgery.

Our findings are of clinical importance, because the pain after the spine surgery is usually difficult to control, and massive use of opioid is associated with adverse clinical event. Besides, the poor management of acute postoperative pain could promote the development of persistent chronic postsurgical pain.[10] As the pooled data showed, lidocaine infusion helped to reduce not only the pain intensity but also the opioid consumption. However, unlike major abdominal surgery,[3,11] these benefits did not decrease the length of hospital stay. The reduction of length of hospital stay is probably mediated by the prevention of bowel obstruction in the setting of major abdominal surgery,[12,13] and the disruption of bowel function in spine surgery is much lower than that in major abdominal surgery.

Perioperative lidocaine infusion may also provide benefit for patients undergoing spine surgery in the long-term, it is reported that patients receiving lidocaine had much less postsurgical chronic back pain intensity and better quality of life compared to the placebo group in 3 months after the spine surgery.[1,14] Besides, perioperative intravenous lidocaine was reported to be associated with less occurrence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction for patients undergoing spine surgery.[8] However, the result was doubted by Dewinter et al study showing no positive long-term effect of lidocaine infusion.[15] Further studies with larger samples and longer follow-up time are still needed to draw a stronger conclusion.

The injection and infusion half-life of intravenous lidocaine is around 1.5 and 12 hours respectively,[6] however, the analgesic effect of lidocaine persists at 48 hours after the surgery. The prolonged analgesic effect might be due to the molecular anti-inflammation property of lidocaine.[16] The inflammation suppressing effect of lidocaine is mediated by the inhibition of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors and leukocyte activation.[1,17] Besides, the plasma concentration of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin-6 and C-reaction protein was reported to be significantly lower in lidocaine group than those in control group,[9,18] those pro-inflammatory cytokines are associated with the postoperative pain intensity.[19] Another possible mechanism might be the inhibition of glycine transporter 1. Glycine transporter 1 was reported to take part in the development of pain and cognitive dysfunction in an animal model of chronic pain.[20]

Systematic use of lidocaine has been reported to have the early analgesic effect in different kinds of surgery, including major abdominal surgery,[13,21,22] inguinal herniorrhaphy,[23] and outpatient laparoscopy.[24] However, intravenous lidocaine has also failed to improve postoperative pain management in many kinds of surgery, such as breast surgery,[25] total hip arthroplasty.[26] The effect of lidocaine infusion varies by the different surgery and anesthesia procedure.[27] The mechanism behind the difference remains unclear, future study should further investigate the overlap and distinction of the effect of intravenous lidocaine in different settings.

The high heterogeneity in opioid consumption was reduced by removing the Dewinter et al study. The main difference between Dewinter et al study and others was the infusion dosage of lidocaine, patients in Dewinter et al study received a continuous lidocaine infusion of 1.5 mg · h-1 · kg-1, yet the infusion rates of lidocaine in other studies were no less than 2 mg · h-1 · kg-1. A previous meta-analysis suggested that the clinical benefit like reduced pain intensity and opioid consumption was significant only when the rates of lidocaine infusion was greater or equal to 2 mg · h-1 · kg-1, no positive effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine was observed at the rates less than 2 mg · h-1 · kg-1.[28] Future studies should focus on the ideal dosage and rate of intravenous lidocaine administration to reach a better and safer clinical outcome.

Our study is also inevitable in shortage. First, the sample size was small (<300 patients), this may raise the possibility of false-positive, further study are needed to draw a firmer conclusion. Second, we did not examine the dose-response effect of lidocaine due to the insufficient number of studies. Third, we could not perform meta-regression to find out the factors resulting in the significant heterogeneity in postoperative pain at 48 hours after the surgery and length of hospital stay. Fourth, we could not analyze the long-term effect of lidocaine due to the diversity in time and measurement of assessment.

5. Conclusion

Perioperative use of intravenous lidocaine attenuates the postoperative pain intensity and reduces the postoperative opioid consumption for patients undergoing spine surgery, although the effect is not associated with the reduction in length of hospital stay. Systematic use of lidocaine could be an effective analgesia adjunct for patients undergoing spine surgery. However, the quantity of the studies was very low, more studies are needed to draw a firmer conclusion.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Yaodan Bi, Zerong Tian

Data curation: Jun Ma, Xiuqian Zhang

Investigation: Zerong Tian

Methodology: Jun Ma, Bin Liu

Supervision: Bin Liu

Validation: Bin Liu

Writing – original draft: Yaodan Bi, Yu Ye, Zerong Tian

Writing – review & editing: Yaodan Bi, Yu Ye

Footnotes

Abbreviations: HS = hospital stay, IV = intravenous, NRS = numerical rating scales, PACU = postanesthesia care unit, PCA = patient controlled analgesia, PONV = postoperative nausea and vomiting, SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, VAS = visual analog scales, WMDs = weight mean differences.

How to cite this article: Bi Y, Ye Y, Ma J, Tian Z, Zhang X, Liu B. Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine for patients undergoing spine surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Medicine. 2020;99:48(e23332).

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

HS = hospital stay, IV = intravenous, NRS = numeric rating scale, PACU = postanesthesia care unit, PCA = patient controlled analgesia, PONV = postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCT = randomized controlled study, VAS = visual analogue scale.

References

  • [1].Farag E, Ghobrial M, Sessler DI, et al. Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine administration on pain, opioid consumption, and quality of life after complex spine surgery. Anesthesiology 2013;119:932–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Bajwa SJ, Haldar R. Pain management following spinal surgeries: an appraisal of the available options. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2015;6:105–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Devin CJ, McGirt MJ. Best evidence in multimodal pain management in spine surgery and means of assessing postoperative pain and functional outcomes. J Clin Neurosci 2015;22:930–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Rusy LM, Hainsworth KR, Nelson TJ, et al. Gabapentin use in pediatric spinal fusion patients: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Anesth Analg 2010;110:1393–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Weibel S, Jelting Y, Pace NL, et al. Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;6:Cd009642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Dewinter G, Moens P, Fieuws S, et al. Systemic lidocaine fails to improve postoperative morphine consumption, postoperative recovery and quality of life in patients undergoing posterior spinal arthrodesis. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Anaesth 2017;118:576–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Ibrahim A, Aly M, Farrag W. Effect of intravenous lidocaine infusion on long-term postoperative pain after spinal fusion surgery. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e0229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Kim KT, Cho DC, Sung JK, et al. Intraoperative systemic infusion of lidocaine reduces postoperative pain after lumbar surgery: a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Spine J 2014;14:1559–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Richebé P, Capdevila X, Rivat C. Persistent postsurgical pain: pathophysiology and preventative pharmacologic considerations. Anesthesiology 2018;129:590–607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Weibel S, Jokinen J, Pace NL, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after surgery: a systematic review with trial sequential analysis. Br J Anaesth 2016;116:770–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Marret E, Rolin M, Beaussier M, et al. Meta-analysis of intravenous lidocaine and postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 2008;95:1331–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].McCarthy GC, Megalla SA, Habib AS. Impact of intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative analgesia and recovery from surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Drugs 2010;70:1149–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Herroeder S, Pecher S, Schonherr ME, et al. Systemic lidocaine shortens length of hospital stay after colorectal surgery: a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg 2007;246:192–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Chen K, Wei P, Zheng Q, et al. Neuroprotective effects of intravenous lidocaine on early postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients following spine surgery. Med Sci Monit 2015;21:1402–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Rowland M, Thomson PD, Guichard A, et al. Disposition kinetics of lidocaine in normal subjects. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1971;179:383–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Hahnenkamp K, Durieux ME, Hahnenkamp A, et al. Local anaesthetics inhibit signalling of human NMDA receptors recombinantly expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes: role of protein kinase C. Br J Anaesth 2006;96:77–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Picardi S, Cartellieri S, Groves D, et al. Local anesthetic-induced inhibition of human neutrophil priming: the influence of structure, lipophilicity, and charge. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2013;38:9–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Koscielniak-Merak B, Batko I, Kobylarz K, et al. Intravenous, perioperatively administered lidocaine regulates serum pain modulators’ concentrations in children undergoing spinal surgery. Pain Med 2019;29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Watkins LR, Maier SF, Goehler LE. Immune activation: the role of pro-inflammatory cytokines in inflammation, illness responses and pathological pain states. Pain 1995;63:289–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Tanabe M, Takasu K, Yamaguchi S, et al. Glycine transporter inhibitors as a potential therapeutic strategy for chronic pain with memory impairment. Anesthesiology 2008;108:929–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Vigneault L, Turgeon AF, Cote D, et al. Perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Can J Anaesth 2011;58:22–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Sun Y, Li T, Wang N, et al. Perioperative systemic lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 2012;55:1183–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Kang H, Kim BG. Intravenous lidocaine for effective pain relief after inguinal herniorrhaphy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Int Med Res 2011;39:435–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].De Oliveira GS, Jr, Fitzgerald P, Streicher LF, et al. Systemic lidocaine to improve postoperative quality of recovery after ambulatory laparoscopic surgery. Anesth Analg 2012;115:262–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Terkawi AS, Durieux ME, Gottschalk A, et al. Effect of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative recovery of patients undergoing mastectomy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2014;39:472–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Martin F, Cherif K, Gentili ME, et al. Lack of impact of intravenous lidocaine on analgesia, functional recovery, and nociceptive pain threshold after total hip arthroplasty. Anesthesiology 2008;109:118–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Dunn LK, Durieux ME. Perioperative use of intravenous lidocaine. Anesthesiology 2017;126:729–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES