Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intravenous Local Anaesthetic Compared with Intraperitoneal Local Anaesthetic in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review

  • Scientific Review
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Modern perioperative care strategies aim to optimise perioperative care by reducing the body’s stress response to surgery. A major facet of optimising an abdominal surgery analgesia programme is using a multimodal opioid sparing approach. Local anaesthetics have shown promise and there has been considerable research into the most effective route for their administration. This review aims to determine if there is a difference in analgesic efficacy between intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) and intravenous local anaesthetic (IVLA).

Materials and Methodology

In concordance with the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted to identify randomised control trials that compared IVLA with IPLA in abdominal surgery. The primary outcomes of interest were opioid analgesia requirements and pain score assessed by visual analogue score. Data were extracted and entered into pre-designed electronic spreadsheets.

Results

This review has identified six papers that compared intravenous lignocaine to intraperitoneal lignocaine. This review showed significantly lower morphine consumption at 4 and 24 h in the intraperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in pain scores.

Conclusion

From the analysis of these studies, intraperitoneal local anaesthetic had an analgesic benefit over intravenous lignocaine with regard to decreased opioid consumption for abdominal surgery. Further research investigating IVL combined with intraperitoneal local anaesthetic is warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Zargar-Shoshtari K et al (2009) Implementation of ERAS and how to overcome the barriers. Int J Surg 7:16–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2005) Fast-track surgery. Br J Surg 92:3–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Boulind CE, Ewings P, Bulley SH et al (2013) Feasibility study of analgesia via epidural versus continuous wound infusion after laparoscopic colorectal resection. Br J Surg 100:395–402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Choi YY, Park JS, Park SY et al (2015) Can intravenous patient-controlled analgesia be omitted in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer? Ann Surg Treat Res 88:86–91

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Artinyan A, Nunoo-Mensah JW, Balasubramaniam S et al (2008) Prolonged postoperative ileus-definition, risk factors, and predictors after surgery. World J Surg 32:1495–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9491-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hah JM, Bateman BT, Ratliff J et al (2017) Chronic opioid use after surgery: implications for perioperative management in the face of the opioid epidemic. Anesth Analg 125:1733–1740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zargar-Shoshtari K, Hill AG (2008) Optimization of perioperative care for colonic surgery: a review of the evidence. ANZ J Surg 78:13–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eipe N, Gupta S, Penning J (2016) Intravenous lidocaine for acute pain: an evidence-based clinical update. BJA Education 16:292–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahokehr A (2013) Intraperitoneal local anesthetic for postoperative pain. Saudi J Anaesth 7:5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Shoshtari KZ et al (2011) Intraperitoneal local anesthetic improves recovery after colon resection: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 254:28–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Soop M et al (2010) Intraperitoneal use of local anesthetic in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci 17:637–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Vather R et al (2010) Systemic levels of local anaesthetic after intra-peritoneal application—a systematic review. Anaesth Intensive Care 38:623–638

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuhrer Y, Charpentier C, Boulanger G et al (1996) Analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy by intraperitoneal administration of bupivacaine. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 15:128–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. (RevMan) RM. Review Manager (RevMan) (2004) In: Collaboration TC editor. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen

  17. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Meth 5:13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jelicic Kadic A, Vucic K, Dosenovic S et al (2016) Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction. J Clin Epidemiol 74:119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Digitizer P (2015) Plot Digitizer In: sourceforge.net editor, sourceforge.net

  20. Kim TH, Kang H, Hong JH et al (2011) Intraperitoneal and intravenous lidocaine for effective pain relief after laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 25:3183–3190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ram D, Sistla SC, Karthikeyan VS et al (2014) Comparison of intravenous and intraperitoneal lignocaine for pain relief following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A double-blind, randomized, clinical trial. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 28:1291–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang SY, Kang H, Choi GJ et al (2014) Efficacy of intraperitoneal and intravenous lidocaine on pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Int Med Res 42:307–319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Samimi S, Taheri A, Tanha F (2015) Comparison between intraperitoneal and intravenous lidocaine for postoperative analgesia after elective abdominal hysterectomy, a double-blind placebo controlled study. J Fam Reprod Health 9:193–198

    Google Scholar 

  24. Perniola A, Fant F, Magnuson A et al (2014) Postoperative pain after abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing continuous infusion vs patient-controlled intraperitoneal injection of local anaesthetic. Br J Anaes 112:328–336

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Murad AFM, Abosrie M, Alazeem E, Mostafa A (2016) Efficacy of intraperitoneal versus intravenous lidocaine for postcesarean pain relief. Evidence based womens health journal 6:144–148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. De Clive-Lowe SG, Desmond J, North J (1958) Intravenous lignocaine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 13(138–14):6

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kranke P, Jokinen J, Pace NL et al (2015) Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009642.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Koppert W, Weigand M, Neumann F et al (2004) Perioperative intravenous lidocaine has preventive effects on postoperative pain and morphine consumption after major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 98:1050–1055

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Zargar K et al (2011) Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic in colon resection—A double-blinded randomised controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 13:59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Soop M et al (2010) Intraperitoneal use of local anesthetic in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(5):637–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamill JK, Rahiri JL, Hill AG (2017) Analgesic effect of intraperitoneal local anesthetic in surgery: an overview of systematic reviews. J Surg Res 212:167–177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Srinivasa S et al (2011) Metabolic response to abdominal surgery: the 2-wound model. Surgery 149:301–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Traub RJ, Sengupta JN, Gebhart GF (1996) Differential c-fos expression in the nucleus of the solitary tract and spinal cord following noxious gastric distention in the rat. Neuroscience 74:873–884

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Berthoud HR, Neuhuber WL (2000) Functional and chemical anatomy of the afferent vagal system. Auton Neurosci Basic Clin 85:1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Wiremu S. MacFater, Weisi Xia, Ahmed Barazanchi, Bruce Su’a & Andrew G. Hill

  2. Department of Pharmacy, Grafton Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Darren Svirskis

Authors
  1. Wiremu S. MacFater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Weisi Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed Barazanchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruce Su’a
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Darren Svirskis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrew G. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

WSM designed the study, performed initial screening and review of all articles included, and composed the manuscript. WX assisted in the study design, performed screening and review of all articles included, and assisted in the preparation of the final manuscript. AB assisted in the study design and performed statistical analysis. BS assisted in the study design and in the preparation of the final manuscript. DS is the co-supervisor and assisted in the preparation of the final manuscript. AGH is the senior author and principal investigator, and provided supervision to the co-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wiremu S. MacFater.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

MacFater, W.S., Xia, W., Barazanchi, A. et al. Intravenous Local Anaesthetic Compared with Intraperitoneal Local Anaesthetic in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review. World J Surg 42, 3112–3119 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4623-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4623-9

Search

Navigation