-
Cureus Nov 2022Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure,... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of Emla (Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics) and Let (Lidocaine, Epinephrine, Tetracaine) for Topical Use in Wound Management for Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure, which may result in one of the most unpleasant and painful childhood experiences. The pain can be minimized through topical anesthesia, such as a combination of lidocaine, epinephrine, and tetracaine (LET) and a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA). The current study was carried out to demonstrate the efficacy of EMLA and LET in pediatric wound management. A thorough literature search was carried out without any time limitation on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant studies from these databases and their references were scoured for additional studies. Study quality appraisal and data analysis were conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). The literature search yielded 1651 articles of which only eight were eligible for inclusion in the present study. A meta-analysis of results from 3 studies showed that LET had a significant pain reduction than the control interventions (SMD: -0.46; 95% CI: -0.69, -0.23: p<0.0001). However, the pooled effect size of data from 3 studies showed EMLA had an insignificant difference with the control interventions (SMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.82, -0.24: p = 0.13). Similarly, no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions was reported in either EMLA (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.67, 7.93; p = 0.18) or LET (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.15, 6.50; p = 0.99) Our study suggests that the topical application of EMLA and LET effectively offers pain-free wound management among pediatric patients. However, the interventions are subject to adverse reactions that should be considered when managing the wounds.
PubMed: 36523723
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31447 -
Burns & Trauma 2022Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There...
BACKGROUND
Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There is no systematic review of their effectiveness in providing post-harvest analgesia, or of the possible toxic effects of systemic absorption. This study is designed to address the question of which agent, if any, is favoured over the others and whether there are any safety data regarding their use.
METHODS
Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials of topical agents applied to STSG DSWs, with a view to providing analgesia. Studies identified via search of Cochrane and EBSCO databases. No restrictions on language or publication year. Primary outcomes: pain at the time of (awake) STSG, and post-harvest pain (up to first dressing change). Secondary outcome was serum medication levels relative to published data on toxic doses. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool utilised in assessment of included studies. At least 2 reviewers screened and reviewed included studies. A narrative review is presented.
RESULTS
There were 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality and patient numbers were low. Topical eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine pre-harvest affords good local anaesthesia in awake STSG harvesting. Topical bupivacaine (5 studies) or lidocaine (1 study) gave significantly better post-harvest anaesthesia/analgesia than placebo. Topical morphine performs no better than placebo. Topical local anaesthetic agents at reported doses were all well below toxic serum levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical local anaesthetics (lidocaine or bupivacaine) provide good analgesia, both during and after STSG harvest, at well below toxic serum levels, but there are no good data determining the best local anaesthetic agent to use. There is no evidence morphine performs better than placebo.
PubMed: 36133279
DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkac020 -
Turkish Journal of Urology Jul 2021Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive...
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others, pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results. We aimed to compare the use of local anesthetics and systemic analgesics from randomized controlled trials evaluating pain management during ESWL. A systematic search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol was performed in theMedline, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library databases. The bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous outcomes. A total of seven studies were obtained. The topical anesthesia used was eutectic mixture of local anesthetic cream and xylocaine gel. In contrast, the local injection anesthesia used was subcutaneous prilocaine and intracutaneous sterile water injection. The systemic analgesics used were intramuscular and oral forms of sodium diclofenac. There is no significant difference between the visual analogue scale results between the local and systemic groups (P> .05). The differences in ESWL frequency were also insignificant (P > .05). Additional analgesics supplementation (MD 8.44, 95% CI 2.28-14.61, P¼ .007) and the duration of the procedure (MD 1.39, 95% CI 0.21-2.56, P¼ .02) were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia in ESWL shows a similar degree of pain and frequency but has a shorter duration and fewer analgesics supplementation than systemic analgesics.
PubMed: 35118950
DOI: 10.5152/tju.2021.21143 -
PloS One 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases (updated March 2020) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of EMLA for patients that underwent ESWL. The search strategy and study selection process were managed according to the PRISMA statement. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the results indicated that EMLA significantly reduced pain compared to the control group (RR = -2.98, 95% CI = -5.82 to -0.13, P = 0.04) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 57% (P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis showed that EMLA did not significantly reduce pain when the patients took an analgesic premedication (RR = -1.46, 95% CI = -5.89 to 2.98, P = 0.52) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 38% (P = 0.52). Conversely, studies without premedication showed a significant pain relief effect (RR = -4.08, 95% CI = -7.36 to -0.65, P = -0.80) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 48% (P = 0.14). Most studies showed there was no difference in the patient's need for analgesics. EMLA was effective for reducing pain during EWSL. However, this analgesic effect was limited and did not reduce the need for analgesics.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Analgesia; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Combined; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Lithotripsy; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 33017397
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237783 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Jan 2021Male circumcision (MC) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on neonates. In the last decades, there have been consistent advances in the understanding... (Review)
Review
Male circumcision (MC) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on neonates. In the last decades, there have been consistent advances in the understanding of pain mechanisms in newborns, and analgesia has become a fundamental part of neonatal care. MC is still often performed with inappropriate analgesic methods, and there is still great variability among the various centers about surgical and anesthethic techniques to do it. The purpose of this review is to summarize the findings in the literature about pain management and analgesia during newborn MC. We performed a systematic review of neonatal MC studies published in the last 20 years. The most effective technique appeared to be the combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of analgesia.Conclusion: Combining local anesthesia with non-pharmacological analgesic strategies appears to be effective preventing procedural pain during MC. However, a standardized protocol for analgesia during MC is yet to be determined. Sensorial saturation appeared to help when used in conjunction with the local anesthesia techniques. What is Known: • Male circumcision is a painful procedure and it is frequently performed with inappropriate analgesic methods. • A gold standard practice in analgesia during male circumcision is still lacking and there is a great variability in the modus operandi between centers. What is New: • The combination of RB + EMLA + sucrose appears to be an analgesic strategy superior to other approaches. • We advocate for the integration of sensorial saturation during male circumcision in order to improve the efficacy of current analgesic practices.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Male; Pain; Prilocaine
PubMed: 32748017
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-020-03758-6 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... May 2020BACKGROUND The efficacy of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) for pain control in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is unclear. The aim of this study was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND The efficacy of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) for pain control in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of EMLA cream on pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant randomized controlled trials that compared the pain control efficacies of EMLA vs. placebo. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: Randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of EMLA with placebo cream for patients underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Two review authors extracted data independently using a designed data extraction form and risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration's tool. RESULTS Nine studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials with 1167 patients, were eligible. The EMLA group experienced less pain (mean difference, -0.47; 95% confidence interval, -0.78 to -0.16; p=0.003) and shorter duration of lithotripsy (mean difference, -1.70, 95% confidence interval: -2.31 to -1.10, p<0.0001) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in the number of patients who needed extra intravenous medication (p=0.610), number of patients with insufficient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy pain control (p=0.530), and number of patients with opioid adverse effects (p=0.320). Limitations: Long interval between the studies, different kinds of lithotripters. CONCLUSIONS EMLA can reduce pain during the ESWL procedure.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Combined; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Lithotripsy; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 32400392
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.921063 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth process consists of assisted vaginal birth by vacuum extraction or by forceps and during blood sampling for newborn screening tests.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of procedural/postoperative pain or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates. To review the effects of various doses and routes of administration (enteral, intravenous or rectal) of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of pain in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 9 May 2016), Embase (1980 to 9 May 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 9 May 2016). We searched clinical trials' databases, Google Scholar, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of paracetamol for the prevention/treatment of pain in neonates (≤ 28 days of age).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the articles using pre-designed forms. We used this form to decide trial inclusion/exclusion, to extract data from eligible trials and to request additional published information from authors of the original reports. We entered and cross-checked data using RevMan 5 software. When noted, we resolved differences by mutual discussion and consensus. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with low risk of bias, which assessed paracetamol for the treatment of pain in 728 infants. Painful procedures studied included heel lance, assisted vaginal birth, eye examination for retinopathy of prematurity assessment and postoperative care. Results of individual studies could not be combined in meta-analyses as the painful conditions, the use of paracetamol and comparison interventions and the outcome measures differed. Paracetamol compared with water, cherry elixir or EMLA cream (eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine) did not significantly reduce pain following heel lance. The Premature Infant Pain Profile score (PIPP) within three minutes following lancing was higher in the paracetamol group than in the oral glucose group (mean difference (MD) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.70; one study, 38 infants). Paracetamol did not reduce "modified facies scores" after assisted vaginal birth (one study, 119 infants). In another study (n = 123), the Échelle de Douleur et d'Inconfort du Nouveau-Né score at two hours of age was significantly higher in the group that received paracetamol suppositories than in the placebo suppositories group (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). In that study, when infants were subjected to a heel lance at two to three days of age, Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates scores were higher in the paracetamol group than in the placebo group, and infants spent a longer time crying (MD 19 seconds, 95% CI 14 to 24). For eye examinations, no significant reduction in PIPP scores in the first or last 45 seconds of eye examination was reported, nor at five minutes after the eye examination. In one study (n = 81), the PIPP score was significantly higher in the paracetamol group than in the 24% sucrose group (MD 3.90, 95% CI 2.92 to 4.88). In one study (n = 114) the PIPP score during eye examination was significantly lower in the paracetamol group than in the water group (MD -2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 1.85). For postoperative care following major surgery, the total amount of morphine (µg/kg) administered over 48 hours was significantly less among infants assigned to the paracetamol group than to the morphine group (MD -157 µg/kg, 95% CI -27 to -288). No adverse events were noted in any study. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The paucity and low quality of existing data do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the role of paracetamol in reducing the effects of painful procedures in neonates. Paracetamol given after assisted vaginal birth may increase the response to later painful exposures. Paracetamol may reduce the total need for morphine following major surgery, and for this aspect of paracetamol use, further research is needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pain; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31985830
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011219.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Spinal anaesthesia has been implicated as one of the possible causes of neurological complications following surgical procedures. This painful condition,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal anaesthesia has been implicated as one of the possible causes of neurological complications following surgical procedures. This painful condition, occurring during the immediate postoperative period, is termed transient neurological symptoms (TNS) and is typically observed after the use of spinal lidocaine. Alternatives to lidocaine that can provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development are needed. This review was originally published in 2005, and last updated in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine and compare it with other types of local anaesthetics by performing a meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons, and conducting network meta-analysis (NMA) to rank interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, and LILACS on 25 November 2018. We searched clinical trial registries and handsearched the reference lists of trials and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine to other local anaesthetics. Studies had to have two or more arms that used distinct local anaesthetics (irrespective of the concentration and baricity of the solution) for spinal anaesthesia in preparation for surgery. We included adults who received spinal anaesthesia and considered all pregnant participants as a subgroup. The follow-up period for TNS was at least 24 hours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant studies and extracted the data from the included studies. We performed meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons of local anaesthetics, as well as NMA. We used an inverse variance weighting for summary statistics and a random-effects model as we expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity across the included studies resulting in varying effect sizes between studies of pair-wise comparisons. The NMA used all included studies based on a graph theoretical approach within a frequentist framework. Finally, we ranked the competing treatments by P scores.
MAIN RESULTS
The analysis included 24 trials reporting on 2226 participants of whom 239 developed TNS. Two studies are awaiting classification and one is ongoing. Included studies mostly had unclear to high risk of bias. The NMA included 24 studies and eight different local anaesthetics; the number of pair-wise comparisons was 32 and the number of different pair-wise comparisons was 11. This analysis showed that, compared to lidocaine, the risk ratio (RR) of TNS was lower for bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine with RRs in the range of 0.10 to 0.23 while 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine did not differ in terms of RR of TNS development compared to lidocaine. Pair-wise meta-analysis showed that compared with lidocaine, most local anaesthetics were associated with a reduced risk of TNS development (except 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine) (bupivacaine: RR 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.28; 12 studies; moderate-quality evidence; 2-chloroprocaine: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.51; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; levobupivacaine: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; mepivacaine: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.18 to 5.82; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence; prilocaine: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence; procaine: RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.52; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence; ropivacaine: RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.78; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We were unable to perform any of our planned subgroup analyses due to the low number of TNS events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results from both NMA and pair-wise meta-analysis indicate that the risk of developing TNS after spinal anaesthesia is lower when bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine are used compared to lidocaine. The use of 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine had a similar risk to lidocaine in terms of TNS development after spinal anaesthesia. Patients should be informed of TNS as a possible adverse effect of local anaesthesia with lidocaine and the choice of anaesthetic agent should be based on the specific clinical context and parameters such as the expected duration of the procedure and the quality of anaesthesia. Due to the very low- to moderate-quality evidence (GRADE), future research efforts in this field are required to assess alternatives to lidocaine that would be able to provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development. The two studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31786810
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003006.pub4 -
Central European Journal of Urology 2019The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and harms of periprostatic block compared with other interventions in patients with clinically suspected... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and harms of periprostatic block compared with other interventions in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent transrectal biopsy to diminish pain.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We included only clinical trials which involved male adults older than 18 years-old suspected of having prostate cancer. The intervention performed was a periprostatic block and the comparators were topical anesthetics, sedatives, placebo/no intervention or combined therapies. The primary outcome was perianal or perineal pain and serious adverse effects (SAE). Literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL and non-published literature from inception to March 2019. We performed a network meta-analysis in R.
RESULTS
We included 43 studies in the meta-analysis. Thirteen studies compared periprostatic block vs. placebo/no intervention (the most frequent). Most of the studies had an unclear risk of bias for selection, performance and detection bias and low risk for attrition, reporting and other bias. Periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) showed an RR -0.9 (95%CI - 1.9 to 0.074); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) had a RR 0.77 (95%CI 0.14 to 1.4); placebo/no intervention vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine+prilocaine) RR 3 (95%CI 1.9 to 4); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) versus periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) RR 1.7 (95%CI 0.64 to 2.7).
CONCLUSIONS
The blockage of the periprostatic plexus in the performance of a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy, alone or in combination with intrarectal analgesia or sedation, is an effective method to reduce pain.
PubMed: 31482018
DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1874 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Postpartum mini-laparotomy tubal ligation (PPTL) is a contraceptive method that works by interrupting the patency of the fallopian tubes. Several methods are used for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postpartum mini-laparotomy tubal ligation (PPTL) is a contraceptive method that works by interrupting the patency of the fallopian tubes. Several methods are used for intraoperative pain relief, such as systemic administration of opioids or intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of and adverse effects associated with interventions for pain relief in women undergoing PPTL.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for eligible studies published on or before 31 July 2017 in the CENTRAL Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We examined review articles and searched registers of ongoing clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks, grey literature, and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared perioperative pain relief measures during PPTL.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. We extracted the data from the included studies, assessed risk of bias, and calculated and compared results. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author. We computed the inverse variance risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
We found only three RCTs, in which a total of 230 postpartum women participated. Most of our analyses were based on relatively small numbers of patients and studies. Overall, the certainty of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low, due to risk of bias and imprecision. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding the safety of interventions because of risk of bias and imprecision. Two studies had unclear risk of selection bias. One study had unclear risk of reporting bias and a high risk of other bias associated with the study protocol.Women who received an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine experienced lower intensity intraperitoneal pain than those given a placebo (pooled MD -3.34, 95% CI -4.19 to -2.49, three studies, 190 participants, low-certainty evidence), or an intramuscular injection of morphine (MD -4.8, 95% CI -6.43 to -3.17, one study, 40 participants, low-certainty evidence). We found no clear difference in intraperitoneal pain between women who had an intramuscular injection of morphine added to an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine and those who had an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine alone (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.72, one study, 40 participants, low-certainty evidence). An intramuscular injection of morphine alone was not effective for intraperitoneal pain relief compared to placebo (MD 0.50, 95% CI -1.33 to 2.33, one study, 40 women, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported any serious adverse events but the evidence was very low-certainty. Intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine may reduce the number of women requiring additional pain control when compared to placebo (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.44, three studies, 190 women, low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
An intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine during postpartum mini-laparotomy tubal ligation before fallopian tubes were tied may offer better intraperitoneal pain control, although the evidence regarding adverse effects is uncertain. We found no clear difference in intraperitoneal pain between women who received a combination of an injection of morphine, and intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine and those who received an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine alone. These results must be interpreted with caution, since the evidence overall was low to very low-certainty.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Female; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Injections, Intramuscular; Intraoperative Care; Laparotomy; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Morphine; Pain, Procedural; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy; Sterilization, Tubal
PubMed: 30706442
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011807.pub2