Objective To investigate the effectiveness of pretreatment with mixture of lidocaine and flurbiprofen axetil in reducing injection pain of propofol. Methods One hundred and sixty ASI I–II patients undergoing general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into four groups (40 cases in each group): the control group, the lidocaine (Lc) group, the flurbiprofen axetil (FA) group and the mixture of lidocaine and flurbiprofen axetil (hereafter termed as “mixture”) group. After the occlusion of venous drainage, patients were pretreated with 7 mL of 0.9% saline in the control group, 5 mL (50 mg) of flurbiprofen axetil and 2 mL of 0.9% saline in the FA group, 2 mL (40 mg) of 2% lidocaine and 5 mL of 0.9% saline in the Lc group, and 5 mL (50 mg) of flurbiprofen axetil and 2 mL (40 mg) of 2% lidocaine in the mixture group, respectively. The occlusion was released 2 min later and then 0.5 mg/kg propofol was injected into the vein within 5 s. During injecting propofol, the patients were asked by another anesthetist to assess and record their pain through using VSR. Results No significant differences in the demographic characteristics were found among the four groups. In comparison with the control group, the incidence rates of propofol injection pain were obviously lower in the mixture group, the FA group and the Lc group (Plt;0.05); there was a significant reduction in the incidence rate of pain in the mixture group compared with the other three groups. The median pain score was significantly lower in the mixture group and the Lc group than that in the control group. During the 24 hour follow-up after operation, neither the adverse events such as red-swelling in injection site, phlebitis or drug eruption, nor the gastrointestinal stimulating signs were found. Conclusion The mixture of flurbiprofen axetil and lidocaine is found to be more effective in reducing injection pain of propofol.
【摘要】 目的 比較利多卡因不同劑量預處理對羅庫溴銨注射痛的影響。 方法 120例行全身麻醉擇期手術的患者按照完全隨機的方法分為利多卡因10 mg 3 mL預處理組（A組），利多卡因25 mg 3 mL預處理組（B組），利多卡因50 mg 3 mL預處理組（C組），生理鹽水3 mL預處理組（D組）。觀察不同劑量的利多卡因預處理對羅庫溴銨注射痛的影響。 結果 A、B、C和D組注射羅庫溴銨的疼痛發生率分別為53%、27%、3%和90%。與生理鹽水預處理組相比，利多卡因預處理組能明顯減輕羅庫溴銨引起的注射痛（Plt;0.01）；劑量越大，效果越明顯。 結論 利多卡因10、25、50 mg預處理均能顯著降低羅庫溴銨注射時引起的疼痛，以50 mg利多卡因更為有效。【Abstract】 Objective To compare the effects of different doses of lidocaine pretreatment on the pain from injection with rocuronium. Methods One hundred and twenty patients of general anesthesia had undergone elective surgery, were randomly divided into lidocaine 10 mg 3 mL pretreated group (group A), lidocaine 25 mg 3 mL pretreated group (group B), lidocaine 50 mg 3 mL pretreated group (group C) and saline 3 mL pretreated group (group D). The effects of different doses of lidocaine pretreatment on injection pain of rocuronium were observed. Results The pain incidence from injection with rocuronium in A, B, C, D groups were 53%, 27%, 3% and 90% respectively. The higher dose of lidocaine, the more obvious effect. Conclusion Lidocaine pretreatment with 10, 25, 50 mg can reduce the severity of pain from injection with rocuronium, and lidocaine 50 mg is the most effective.
Objective To investigate the applied significance of adjustable low-concentration of mixed oxygenand nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia in anorectal surgery. Methods Three hundreds patients underwent anorectal surgery in our hospital were divided into control group （n=154） and observation group （n=146）. Patients of control group underwent pure lidocaine local anesthesia， and patients of observation group underwent mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide sedation analgesia combined with lidocaine local anesthesia. Vital signs before and after operation as well as results of sedation and analgesia were compared between the 2 groups. Results Anorectal surgeries of all patients were performed successfully. There were no significant differences on change of heart rate， blood pressure， and oxygen saturation between the 2 groups before and after operation （P＞0.05）. The operation time between the control group 〔（36.3±6.8） min〕 and observation group 〔（35.4±6.5） min〕 had no statistically significant difference（t=-0.607， P=0.544）. The analgesic effects （Z=-6.859， P=0.000） and sedative effects （Z=-5.275， P=0.000） of obser-vation group were both better than those of control group. Conclusions Low-concentration of mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia can relieve the discomfort of fear and pain， no side-impacts on vital sign before and after operation were observed，and it has better effects of sedation and analgesia， therefore it can be recommended to clinical application.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine spray before nasogastric tube insertion.
MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM and CNKI databases concerning randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine spray before nasogastric tube insertion from their inception to January 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was then conducted using RevMan 5.2 software.
ResultsSix RCTs involving 384 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the lidocaine group and the saline group in pain and discomfort scores (MD=-25.35, 95%CI -30.37 to -24.33) and first successful insertion rate (RR=1.38, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.57).
ConclusionIntranasal lidocaine spray before nasogastric tube insertion could reduce patient pain and discomforts related to the procedure, and improve the first successful insertion rate.
Objective To evaluate the analgesic effect of intra-articular ropivacaine with lidocaine. Methods A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. Ninety patients receiving selective knee arthroscopy were randomized into three groups of 30 patients. At the end of the operation, before the release of the tourniquet, an intra-articular injection was administered to each patient through arthroscope, in accordance with their random allocation: 0.9% normal saline (normal saline group); 100 mg ropivacaine (ropivacaine alone group) and 100 mg ropivacaine and 100 mg 2% lidocaine (ropivacaine with lidocaine group). Pain intensity was assessed after the operation using the 100-mm visual-analog scale (VAS), and the amount of supplemental analgesics used within the following 24 hours were recorded. Results The VAS scores of 2 hours postoperatively at rest, and 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours postoperatively at motion, were significantly higher in the normal saline group than in ropivacaine alone group (Plt;0.05). The VAS scores 0.5, 1 and 2 hours postoperatively at rest, and at the awaking moment, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, and 24 hours postoperatively at motion, were significantly higher in the normal saline group than in ropivacaine with lidocaine group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Intra-articular ropivacaine can reduce a patient’s pain after operation. The combination of lidocaine with intra-articular ropivacaine can reduce the patient’s pain severity immediately after the operation and achieve an early analgesic effect.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the prophylactic efficacy of lidocaine administrated intravenously in advance on rocuronium associated injection pain/withdrawal movement in patients under general anesthesia.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pretreatment with lidocaine intravenously to prevent injection pain /withdraw movement from rocuronium from inception to September 30th, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies; then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 30 RCTs involving 2 518 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared to the control group, pretreating with intravenous lidocaine could significantly reduced the occurrence of total pain/withdrawal movement associated with rocuronium injection (RR=0.43, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.51, P<0.000 01), and whether with (RR=0.39, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.52, P<0.000 01) or without (RR=0.45, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.57, P<0.000 01) occluding the vein, intravenous lidocaine could prevent pain/withdrawal movement associated with rocuronium injection. In addition, the incidence of lidocaine group igniting moderate (RR=0.38, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.46, P<0.000 01) or severe (RR=0.23, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.30, P<0.000 01) pain/ withdrawal movement were less likely to occur. However, there was no difference between the lidocaine and control group in the incidence of mild injection pain/withdrawal movement induced by rocuronium (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.75 to 1.06, P=0.19).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that pre-intravenous lidocaine can reduce the occurrence of injection pain/withdrawal movement associated with rocuronium injection patients, especially in the prevention of moderate and severe injection pain/withdrawal movement.
Objective To assess the anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis. Methods We electronically searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009), CNKI, VIP and CBM. The search was updated to December 2009. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were indentified about articaine and lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis. Study selection and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews. And RevMan5.0 was applied for statistical analysis in success rate. Results Nine trials involving 985 pulpitis patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated that, both the anesthetic success rate (RR=1.33, 95%CI 1.23 to1.44) and maxillary anesthetic success rate (RR=1.65, 95%CI 1.38 to 1.98) of articaine were superior to that of lidocaine, but there was no statistical significance in mandibular anesthetic success rate between two groups (RR=1.28, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.69). Conclusion The current evidence shows that articaine is superior to lidocaine in anesthetic efficacy, and is good at maxillary anesthesia.
