Lidocaine is an amide local anaesthetic. In recent years, clinical evidence shows that perioperative intravenous lidocaine injection plays an active role in anti-inflammation, analgesia, anti-tumor and organ protection. Postoperative pain is severe in patients after thoracic surgery, and the incidence of pulmonary complications and cognitive impairment is high. These adverse reactions and complications are closely related to the inflammatory reaction after thoracic surgery. Intravenous infusion of lidocaine may have some effects on alleviating these adverse reactions and complications. Thus, this article reviews the current status of intravenous lidocaine injection in thoracic surgery and explores the related mechanisms to optimize the management of anaesthesia during the perioperative period of thoracic surgery.
目的:比较复方利多卡因和盐酸利多卡因的麻醉效果。方法:将 200 例口腔局麻的患者随机分为试验组和对照组,试验组应用复方利多卡因,对照组应用盐酸利多卡因。结果: 复方利多卡因的麻醉效果及时间明显优于盐酸利多卡因,两者结果在统计学上有显著性差异(Plt;0 01)。结论: 复方利多卡因具有显效时间快、作用时间长、止痛效果好的特点,特别是口腔科术后长效镇痛效果明显,值得推广应用。
目的:比较芬太尼与利多卡因宫旁阻滞麻醉在人工流产术中的疗效。方法:选择我院2009年3月~2009年5月门诊终止妊娠早孕妇女100例,分为两组。芬太尼组50例,利多卡因组50例。比较两组宫旁阻滞麻醉镇痛效果及人流综合征发生率。结果:芬太尼组的镇痛效果明显优于利多卡因组,人流综合征的发生率明显低于利多卡因组。结论:芬太尼宫旁阻滞麻醉具有镇痛效果明显，人流综合征发生率低等优点，优于利多卡因麻醉效果。
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of lidocaine injected prior to tracheal extubation in preventing hemodynamic responses to tracheal extubation in general anesthesia.MethodsPubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of lidocaine administrated prior to extubation in preventing hemodynamic responses to tracheal extubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia from inception to October, 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 and Stata 13.0 software.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 525 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with control group, lidocaine could reduce mean arterial pressure in 5 min after extubation (MD=–5.10, 95%CI –9.41 to –0.79, P=0.02), weaken the increase in systolic blood pressure caused by extubation from the moment before extubation to 5 minutes after extubation (before extubation: MD=–7.22, 95%CI –10.34 to –4.11, P<0.000 01; at extubation: MD=–14.02, 95%CI –19.42 to –8.62, P<0.000 01; 1 minutes after extubation: MD=–15.82, 95%CI –22.20 to –9.45, P<0.000 01; 3 minutes after extubation: MD=–12.55, 95%CI –20.36 to –4.74, P=0.002; and 5 minutes after extubation: MD=–12.05, 95%CI –20.35 to –3.74, P=0.004), and weakened extubation-induced increase in diastolic blood pressure at extubation (MD=–9.71, 95%CI –16.57 to –2.86, P=0.005). In addition, lidocaine inhibited heart rate in all time points except the moment of before and at 10 minutes after extubation.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that lidocaine can inhibit the increase in blood pressure and heart rate caused by extubation at certain times. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify above conclusions.
目的：观察利多卡因宫旁阻滞联合宫腔灌注在人流术中镇痛的效果。方法:收集我院2005年1～2月门诊终止妊娠的早孕妇女共94例并分为两组:单纯宫旁阻滞组（简称单纯组）35例，宫旁阻滞联合宫腔灌注（简称联合组）59例。比较两种利多卡因局麻方式的效果。结果:（1)两组的止痛效果无明显差异(P=0.893);(2)联合组对宫颈的松弛作用优于宫旁阻滞(Ｐ=0.000);(3)联合组较多病例出现眩晕、耳鸣等副反应。结论:与单纯宫旁阻滞相比，宫旁阻滞联合宫腔灌注并无明显优势。
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical effect of lidocaine mucilage diluent and simethicone emulsion in gastroscopy examination, in order to provide effective drugs for gastroscopy. MethodsWe selected 201 outpatients and the inpatients who underwent gastroscopic examination between August and October 2014 as the research subjects. Based on the kind of drug, the patients were randomly divided into research group (n=100) and control group (n=101). Patients in the research group accepted lidocaine mucilage diluent, while those in the control group received simethicone emulsion. Then we observed and compared the definition of gastroscopy, adverse drug reactions, examination time and drug price between the two groups. ResultsThe frequencies of high, medium, and low definition of gastroscopy were respectively 63.00%, 34.00% and 3.00% among the patients in the research group, and 69.31%, 26.73% and 3.96% among patients in the control group; there was no significant differences between the two groups (Z=-0.854, P=0.393). The adverse reaction rates, testing time, and drug prices for the two groups were 0.99% vs.1.00% (P>0.05), (6.5±2.1) minutes vs.(6.6±2.0) minutes (t=0.458, P>0.05), and RMB (9.0±1.2) yuan vs.(42.8±2.8) yuan (t=227.644, P<0.05), respectively. ConclusionLidocaine mucilage diluent and simethicone emulsion both have good effect for gastroscopic examination, which can raise the gastroscopic definition, promote endoscopic operation and observation by doctors, shorten examination time, and reduce adverse drug reactions. Both are of great value in clinical application, and lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage diluent is cheaper, which can be widely used and promoted clinically.
Objective To evaluate the effects of midazolam intravenous drip combined with lidocaine via nebulization on patients during mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit ( ICU) . Methods 60 thoracic patients required postoperative mechanical ventilation in ICUwere randomized into 2 groups. The patients in therapeutic group received lidocaine 1 mg/kg via nebulization and midazolam intravenous drip 0. 1 mg·kg- 1·h- 1 . The patients in control group received 0. 9% NaCl 1 mg/kg via nebulization andmidazolam0. 1 mg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 . According to the scale of Ramsay, the additional midazolam and fentanyl were injected to maintain sedation and inhibit cough in both groups. During ventilation, calm score, the number and the severity of cough, the mean arterial pressure ( MAP) , heart rate ( HR) , and the consumption of midazolam and fentanyl were record. Results The number and severity of cough, the scale of MAP and HR in the therapeutic group were all significant lower than those in the control group ( P lt; 0. 05) . Theconsumption of midazolam and fentanyl in the therapeutic group were also significantly lower than that in the control group ( P lt; 0. 05) .Conclusion Midazolam intravenous drip combined with lidocaine via nebulization can reduce the side effects and requirement of sedative and opioids drug in ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.
ObjectiveTo study the feasibility of using propofol and remifentanil for tracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and investigate the influence of tracheal intubation on such vital signs as blood pressure and heart rates. MethodsEighty ASA I-Ⅱ patients who underwent general anesthesia in our hospital between December 2012 and April 2013 were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A received fentanyl-propofol, while patients in group B received remifentanyl-propofol-lidocaine. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, and body weight (P>0.05). Conventional intubation induction method was used for group A:0.05-0.10 mg/kg midazolam, 4 μg/kg fentanyl, 1.0-1.5 mg/kg propofol, and 0.6-0.9 mg/kg atracurium were given and tracheal intubation was performed after muscle relaxation. Group B patients were treated with remifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid slow intravenous injection, and compound cricothyroid membrane puncture method before endotracheal intubation. We observed the two groups of patients for vital signs before and after induction, and choking cough reactions. ResultsPatients in both the two groups were all able to complete tracheal intubation. Circulation change and incidence of tachycardia in patients of group A were significantly higher than those in group B (P<0.05). The rates of bradycardia, hypoxemia, and choking cough response were low in both groups with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). ConclusionRemifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid can be safely used for implementation of endotracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and the hemodynamic stability can be maintained.
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.