TY - JOUR
T1 - Intraperitoneal lignocaine (lidocaine) versus bupivacaine after laparoscopic cholecystectomy
T2 - Results of a randomized controlled trial
AU - Khan, Muhammad Rizwan
AU - Raza, Rushna
AU - Zafar, Syed Nabeel
AU - Shamim, Faisal
AU - Raza, Syed Ahsan
AU - Pal, Khawaja Muhammad Inam
AU - Zafar, Hasnain
AU - Alvi, Rehman
AU - Chawla, Tabish
AU - Azmi, Rizwan
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was funded by Grant 091026SUR from the University Research Council of the Aga Khan University .
PY - 2012/12
Y1 - 2012/12
N2 - Background: Intraperitoneal local anesthetics have been shown to improve postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, the choice of local anesthetic agent is debatable. We compared the analgesic efficacy of intraperitoneal lignocaine (lidocaine) versus bupivacaine after elective LC. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. We randomized consecutive patients undergoing LC into two groups. Group L received 10 mL 2% lignocaine (lidocaine), whereas Group B received 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine, each diluted in 10 mL normal saline. All patients underwent standard perioperative anesthesia and analgesia protocol. We assessed patients at 0, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h postoperatively for pain using the visual analogue scale and verbal rating scale, and the need for additional analgesic medications. Results: We analyzed a total of 206 patients: 106 in Group L and 100 in Group B. Demographic details were similar between groups (P > 0.05). Abdominal pain decreased significantly with time in both groups, with a similar mean response profile (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups with regard to abdominal or shoulder pain by both visual analogue scale and verbal rating scale at all five time intervals (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in the side effect profile of both drugs (P > 0.05). A lower proportion of patients in Group B required additional narcotic analgesia (87%) compared with Group L (94%). This difference was marginally significant (P = 0.057). Conclusions: Bupivacaine and lignocaine (lidocaine) are both safe and equally effective at decreasing postoperative pain after LC.
AB - Background: Intraperitoneal local anesthetics have been shown to improve postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, the choice of local anesthetic agent is debatable. We compared the analgesic efficacy of intraperitoneal lignocaine (lidocaine) versus bupivacaine after elective LC. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. We randomized consecutive patients undergoing LC into two groups. Group L received 10 mL 2% lignocaine (lidocaine), whereas Group B received 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine, each diluted in 10 mL normal saline. All patients underwent standard perioperative anesthesia and analgesia protocol. We assessed patients at 0, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h postoperatively for pain using the visual analogue scale and verbal rating scale, and the need for additional analgesic medications. Results: We analyzed a total of 206 patients: 106 in Group L and 100 in Group B. Demographic details were similar between groups (P > 0.05). Abdominal pain decreased significantly with time in both groups, with a similar mean response profile (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups with regard to abdominal or shoulder pain by both visual analogue scale and verbal rating scale at all five time intervals (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in the side effect profile of both drugs (P > 0.05). A lower proportion of patients in Group B required additional narcotic analgesia (87%) compared with Group L (94%). This difference was marginally significant (P = 0.057). Conclusions: Bupivacaine and lignocaine (lidocaine) are both safe and equally effective at decreasing postoperative pain after LC.
KW - Analgesia
KW - Bupivacaine
KW - Laparoscopic cholecystectomy
KW - Lignocaine (lidocaine)
KW - Postoperative
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869085352&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jss.2012.06.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jss.2012.06.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 22763212
AN - SCOPUS:84869085352
SN - 0022-4804
VL - 178
SP - 662
EP - 669
JO - Journal of Surgical Research
JF - Journal of Surgical Research
IS - 2
ER -