Use of intravenous lidocaine for dose reduction of propofol in paediatric colonoscopy patients: a randomised placebo-controlled study

Abstract Background Propofol, a widely used sedative in endoscopic procedures, sometimes causes cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can diminish visceral pain and decrease the dose of propofol. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing propofol dosage during paediatric colonoscopy. Methods Forty children who underwent colonoscopy were divided into two groups. Lidocaine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg induction and 2 mg/kg/h maintenance) was given intravenously to the lidocaine group, and the same amount of saline was given to the control group after they received lidocaine induction. Propofol initial plasma concentration of 5 μg/mL was targeted, and the procedure was performed after the bispectral index value reached 55. The primary outcome was propofol requirement. Results The propofol requirement in the lidocaine group was decreased by 35.5% (128.6 ± 30.4 mg vs. 199.4 ± 57.6 mg; p < 0.001; 95%CI: − 100.60, − 41.02). The incidence of involuntary body movements was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.028; OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.92). The awakening time (p < 0.001; 95%CI: − 7.67, − 5.13) and recovery times (p < 0.001; 95%CI: − 7.45, − 4.35) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Pain was significantly less at 30 min and 60 min after the procedure in the lidocaine group (0 [0–4] vs. 3 [0–5], p < 0. 001; 0 [0–2] vs. 1 [0–3], p = 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxia between the two groups. Conclusions For colonoscopy procedures in paediatric patients, intravenous lidocaine reduces the amount of propofol needed, provides better sedation and postprocedural pain management, as well as a reduction in recovery time. Trial registration The trial was registered on November 6, 2020 at China Clinical Trials Registration Center (www.chictr.org.cn) ref.: ChiCTR 2,000,039,706.

Download Full-text

Use of Intravenous Lidocaine for Dose Reduction of Propofol in Paediatric Colonoscopy Patients: a Randomised Placebo-controlled Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-601733/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Wenshui Yao ◽

Longxin Zhang ◽

Guolin Lu ◽

Jing Wang ◽

Li Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Visceral Pain ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Control Group ◽

Intravenous Lidocaine ◽

Lidocaine Group ◽

The Awakening ◽

Initial Plasma ◽

Cardiopulmonary Complications ◽

Recovery Times ◽

Index Value

Abstract Background: Propofol, a widely used sedative in endoscopic procedures, often causes cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can diminish visceral pain and decrease the dose of propofol. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing propofol dosage during paediatric colonoscopy.Methods: Forty children who underwent colonoscopy were divided into two groups. Lidocaine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg induction and 2 mg/kg/h maintenance) was given intravenously to the lidocaine group, and the same amount of saline was given to the control group after they received lidocaine induction. Propofol initial plasma concentration of 5 μg/mL was targeted, and the procedure was performed after the bispectral index value reached 55. The primary outcome was propofol requirement. Results: The propofol requirement in the lidocaine group was decreased by 35.5% (128.6 ± 30.4 mg vs. 199.4 ± 57.6 mg; p < 0.001; 95%CI: -100.60, -41.02). The incidence of involuntary body movements was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.028; OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.92). The awakening time (p < 0.001; 95%CI: -7.67, -5.13) and recovery times (p < 0.001; 95%CI: -7.45, -4.35) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Pain was significantly less at 30 min and 60 min after the procedure in the lidocaine group (0 [0 – 4] vs. 3 [0 – 5], p < 0. 001; 0 [0 – 2] vs. 1 [0 – 3], p < 0.001). The mean lowest blood pressure during the procedure in the control group was significantly lower (p = 0.027; 95%CI: 0.44, 6.86). There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxia between the two groups.Conclusions: For colonoscopy procedures in paediatric patients, intravenous lidocaine reduces the amount of propofol needed, provides better sedation and postprocedural pain management, as well as a reduction in recovery time.Trial registration: The trial was registered on November 6, 2020 at China Clinical Trials Registration Center (www.chictr.org.cn) ref: ChiCTR 2000039706.

Download Full-text

Continuous Infusion of Lidocaine in Pediatric Colonoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-112960/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Chao Yuan ◽

Chengli Wang ◽

Jiayao Wu ◽

Ningyang Gao ◽

Kuiwei Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Continuous Infusion ◽

Recovery Time ◽

Oxygen Desaturation ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Control Group ◽

Intravenous Lidocaine ◽

Lidocaine Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Pediatric Colonoscopy

Abstract Background: To investigate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on perioperative propofol and sufentanil dosage, pulse oxygen saturation, postoperative pain score and recovery time during pediatric colonoscopy.Methods: We designed a randomized placebo-controlled study and enrolled 80 children aged from 3 to 10 years old who were received colonoscopy. After titration of propofol to achieve unconsciousness, patients were given intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg kg-1 then 2 mg kg-1 h-1) or the same volume of saline. Sedation was standardized and combined propofol with sufentanil. The primary outcome variables were intraoperative propofol and sufentanil requirements and number of oxygen desaturation episodes. Secondary outcome variables were recovery time after colonoscopy and post-colonoscopy pain.Results: Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements: mean (SD) 44.3 (9.9) vs 74.5 (12.0) mg, respectively; P<0.001) and sufentanil requirements: mean (SD) 1.5 (0.3) vs 2.6 (0.6) ug respectively; p<0.001). The number of subjects who experienced oxygen desaturation below 95% in the lidocaine group was also significantly less than that in the control group: 2 vs 8 (P=0.04). The mean (SD) recovery time was significantly shorter in lidocaine group: 19.2 (2.6) vs 13.3 (2.6) min respectively; p<0.001). There were no significant difference regarding post-colonoscopy pain.Conclusions: Continuous infusion of lidocaine resulted in reduction of propofol and sufentanil dose, recovery time and risk of hypoxemia during pediatric colonoscopy.Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, ChiCTR2000028927, 8 January, 2020, prospectively registered.

Download Full-text

Preemptive use of adjunctive IV lidocaine for enhanced recovery after abdominal hysterectomy for overweight and obese women: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

International Journal of Reproduction Contraception Obstetrics and Gynecology ◽

10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20210741 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 1095

Author(s):

Nahla Waer Shady ◽

Hassan Ahmed Farouk ◽

Hany Farouk Sallam

Keyword(s):

Visual Analog Scale ◽

Bolus Dose ◽

Abdominal Hysterectomy ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Obese Women ◽

Intravenous Lidocaine ◽

Analog Scale ◽

Double Blind ◽

Lidocaine Group ◽

Pain Scores

Background: This investigation planned to evaluate the clinical results of adjunctive IV lidocaine bolus dose plus infusion for one hour after surgery in patients who underwent an abdominal hysterectomy in obese and overweight women.Methods: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NC03748108), with patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy divided into 2 groups: one group received intravenous lidocaine single bolus dose preoperatively and IV infusions till one hour after the surgical procedure, and the opposite received normal saline infusion (placebo). We assessed postoperative results, including pain scores rankings on a visual analog scale (VAS) in rest and movement, administration frequency of pethidine. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, the period of hospital stay (LOS), time to ambulate, and patient satisfaction at forty-eight hours had been evaluated. Chi-square test and Monte Carlo test have been used for comparison among groups.Results: There were 120 patients in our study. The visual analog scale (VAS), pain scores, length of hospital stay (LOS), and administration frequency of pethidine were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. The total amount of consumed pethidine was significantly lower in the lidocaine than the placebo group. There was a significant reduction in post-operative pain which was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) after 2,4,8,12, and 24 hours either during movement or during rest in the lidocaine group compared to the placebo group, p=(0. 0001,0.0001,0.0001,0.0001 and 0.0001).Conclusions: The administration of adjuvant intravenous lidocaine infusion reduces pain during the postoperative period after abdominal hysterectomy, is associated with early recovery, decreased postoperative opioid analgesic requirement, and better patient satisfaction in overweight and obese women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

Download Full-text

The use of Preoperative Lidocaine to Prevent Stridor and Laryngospasm after Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy

Otolaryngology ◽

10.1016/s0194-5998(98)70290-6 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 118 (6) ◽

pp. 880-882 ◽

Cited By ~ 50

Author(s):

CAN KOÇ ◽

FALIH KOCAMAN ◽

ERDINÇ AYGENÇ ◽

CAFER ÖZDEM ◽

ALI ÇEKIÇ

Keyword(s):

Early Postoperative Period ◽

Control Group ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Intravenous Lidocaine ◽

Double Blind ◽

Lidocaine Group ◽

Group 4 ◽

Topical Lidocaine ◽

Plasma Lidocaine ◽

Sedation Scores

The most important complications from tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy are bleeding, stridor, and laryngospasm. This controlled, double-blind study was designed to investigate the effects of topical and intravenous lidocaine on stridor and laryngospasm. A total of 134 patients scheduled for elective tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy were randomly separated into four groups. In the topical lidocaine group 4 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine was applied to subglottic, glottic, and supraglottic areas before endotracheal intubation. Normal saline solution was used topically for the first control group. In the intravenous lidocaine group, patients were given 1 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine before extubation, and the same amount of 0.9% NaCl was given to the second control group. Postoperative stridor, laryngospasm, cyanosis, bleeding, sedation degree, and respiratory depression were observed, and plasma lidocaine levels were measured. Both topical and intravenous lidocaine groups revealed less stridor and laryngospasm than the control groups, and no difference was found between the topical and intravenous lidocaine groups except the higher sedation scores in the early postoperative period for the intravenous lidocaine group. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:880–2.)

Download Full-text

Effects of Intravenous Lidocaine on Alfentanil Consumption During Procedural Sedation for Colonoscopy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a Randomized Controlled Trial

10.21203/rs.3.rs-50910/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Twan Aalbers ◽

Sandra A.S. van den Heuvel ◽

Ewald M. Bronkhorst ◽

Aura A.J. van Esch ◽

Gert Jan Scheffer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Primary Objective ◽

Procedural Sedation ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Control Group ◽

Double Blind ◽

Lidocaine Group ◽

Sedation And Analgesia ◽

Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used during colonoscopy to facilitate the procedure and relieve patient’s discomfort. The foremost risk of PSA is respiratory depression. Lidocaine could be a promising additional analgesic in IBD patients to minimise side effects of PSA.Our primary objective was to investigate whether i.v. lidocaine reduces the amount of alfentanil used during PSA in IBD patients. Additionally, we investigated whether lidocaine reduces cardiorespiratory incidents and the amount of propofol required during the procedure.Methods: A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled study was performed at the endoscopy unit of the Radboud University Medical Centre from November 2016 to December 2018. Seventy-six patients with IBD, ASA 1 or 2, between 18 and 65 years, scheduled for colonoscopy with PSA were included. Patients received lidocaine 1.5 mg kg-1 followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg-1 h-1 (intervention group, n=38) or 0.9% saline in equivalent volumes (control group, n=38) during colonoscopy.Results: There was a reduction in the use of alfentanil (327µg (95%CI=-31-505, p=0.082)), and propofol (39 mg (95%CI=-5-83, p=0.083)) in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. Ten patients (26%) in the control group and 8 patients in the lidocaine group (21%) experienced a period of hypoxia (p=0.788). In both groups, no periods of hypotension were noted.Conclusion: Our investigation has shown a reduction in the use of propofol and alfentanil in patients undergoing colonoscopy with PSA. The differences were not statistically significant. Lidocaine did not reduces the incidence of cardiorespiratory events.Trial registration:EudraCT, 2016-002210-46, registered 19 may 2016,https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2016-002210-46/resultsISRCTN, ISRCTN47787339, retrospectively registered 6 February 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47787339

Download Full-text

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

BMC Anesthesiology ◽

10.1186/s12871-020-01049-z ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mengmeng Chen ◽

Yi Lu ◽

Haoran Liu ◽

Qingxia Fu ◽

Jun Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Elderly Patients ◽

Normal Saline ◽

Body Movement ◽

Final Analysis ◽

The Elderly ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Intravenous Lidocaine ◽

Cardiopulmonary Complications ◽

Sparing Effect ◽

Double Blinded

Abstract Background Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised. Methods Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg− 1 h− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol. Results A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg− 1 min− 1) (P = 0.002). Conclusions The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy. Trial registration The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

Download Full-text

Intravenous lidocaine Increases the Efficacy of Propofol Anesthesia for Gastroscope Implanted:A Randomised, Double-blind, Controlled Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-149394/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Fu Shi ◽

Jie Chen ◽

Guang Ren ◽

Rong Du ◽

Xiang Wang

Keyword(s):

Adverse Reaction ◽

Dose Response ◽

Saline Group ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Intravenous Lidocaine ◽

Response Curves ◽

Double Blind ◽

Lidocaine Group ◽

Post Operative Pain ◽

The Impact

Abstract Backgroud: Gastroscope insertion is a distressing experience and propofol use for sedation can result in inhibition of circulation and respiration. Intravenous (IV) infusion of lidocaine has been shown to reduce propofol requirements during surgery.The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of IV lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol and other outcomes after surgery. Method: Ninety adult patients undergoing analgesic gastroscopy were randomly divided into two groups (45 cases in each). The lidocaine group was slowly injected with 1% lidocaine at 1.5mg/kg while the saline group was given the same volume of saline before propofol induction. Motion and cough reaction were regarded as the judgment index of gastroscope implanted. The dose-response curves were made in the two groups when implanted gastroscope according to the formula of Y=Ymin+(Ymax-Ymin)/[1+10 log(ED50-X)*m ]. The primary outcome were the ED50 and requirement of propofol. Secondary outcomes were:intraoperative hemodynamic parameters,adverse reaction,awakening time,post-operative pain and fatigue. Results: Compared with the group S, the dose-response curve showing percentage of gastroscope implanted after propofol anesthesia in the L group shifted to the left. Intravenous infusion of lidocaine decreased the ED50 of propofol (group S 1.80mg/kg, group L 1.56mg/kg).Compared with group S, induction, additional requirement and total dose of propofol anesthesia, and incidence of bucking were significantly reduced in group L (P<0.05). Post-operative fatigue scores in group L were lower than that in group S (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Intravenous lidocaine could reduce the consumption of propofol anesthesia and reduce adverse reaction in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy. Trials registration: ChiCTR2000038542. Data of registration: Sep 23th, 2020.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Propofol-Remifentanil Versus Propofol-Ketamine Deep Sedation for Third Molar Surgery

Anesthesia Progress ◽

10.2344/12-00001.1 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 59 (3) ◽

pp. 107-117 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Kyle J. Kramer ◽

Steven Ganzberg ◽

Simon Prior ◽

Robert G. Rashid

Keyword(s):

Deep Sedation ◽

Third Molar ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Third Molar Surgery ◽

Control Group ◽

Oral Surgical Procedures ◽

Third Molar Extraction ◽

Surgical Extraction ◽

Recovery Times ◽

Double Blinded

This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusions for pain relief in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial

BMC Anesthesiology ◽

10.1186/s12871-020-01218-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Maciej Kaszyński ◽

Dorota Lewandowska ◽

Piotr Sawicki ◽

Piotr Wojcieszak ◽

Izabela Pągowska-Klimek

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Outcome Measure ◽

Primary Outcome Measure ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Control Group ◽

Intravenous Lidocaine ◽

Lidocaine Group ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Fentanyl Consumption

Abstract Intravenous lidocaine, a potent local anesthetic with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, has been shown to be an effective adjunct that reduces intra- and postoperative opioid consumption and facilitates pain management in adults. While it shows promise for use in the pediatric population, limited evidence is available. Objectives To determine if general anesthesia with intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion versus general anesthesia without intravenous lidocaine infusion in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy decreased opioid requirements intra- and postoperatively. Design A single-center parallel single-masked randomized controlled study. A computer-generated blocked randomization list was used to allocate participants. The study was conducted between March 2019 and January 2020. Setting: Pediatric teaching hospital in Poland. Participants Seventy-four patients aged between 18 months and 18 years undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Seventy-one patients fulfilled the study requirements. Intervention Intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg over 5 min before induction of anesthesia followed by lidocaine infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/h intraoperatively. The infusion was discontinued before the patients’ transfer to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Primary outcome measure The primary outcome measure was total nalbuphine requirement in milligrams during the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcome measures The secondary outcome measures were intraoperative fentanyl consumption, intraoperative sevoflurane consumption, time to the first rescue analgesic request, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h after surgery, frequency of side effects of lidocaine. Results Children (n = 74) aged 5–17 randomly allocated to receive intraoperative lidocaine infusion (n = 37) or no intervention (n = 37). Seventy-one were included in the analysis (35 in the study group and 36 in the control group). There was no difference in the cumulative dose of nalbuphine in the first 24 h after removal of the endotracheal tube between groups [median of 0.1061 (IQR: 0.0962–0.2222) mg/kg in the lidocaine group, compared to the control group median of 0.1325 (IQR: 0.0899–0.22020) mg/kg, p = 0.63]. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption was lower in the lidocaine group [median of 5.091 (IQR: 4.848–5.714) μg/kg] than in the control group [median of 5.969 (IQR: 5.000–6.748), p = 0.03]. Taking into account the additional doses administered based on clinical indications, the reduction in the requirement for fentanyl in the lidocaine group was even greater [median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0–0.952) vs 0.99 (IQR: 0.0–1.809) μg/kg, p = 0.01]. No difference was observed in the sevoflurane consumption between the two groups [median of 32.5 ml (IQR 25.0–43.0) in the lidocaine group vs median of 35.0 ml (IQR: 23.5–46.0) in the control group, p = 0.56]. The time to first analgesic request in the lidocaine group was prolonged [median of 55 (IQR: 40–110) min in the lidocaine group vs median of 40.5 (IQR: 28–65) min in the control group, p = 0.05]. There was no difference in the frequency of PONV between the two groups (48.57% in the lidocaine group vs 61.11% in the control group, p = 0.29). No lidocaine related incidence of anaphylaxis, systemic toxicity, circulatory disturbances or neurological impairment was reported, during anesthesia or postoperative period. Conclusions Intraoperative systemic lidocaine administration reduced the intraoperative requirement for opioids in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. This effect was time limited, and hence did not affect opioid consumption in the first 24 h following discontinuation of lidocaine infusion. Trial registration NCT03886896.

Download Full-text

EFFECT OF PROFESSIONAL BLEACHING ON THE HYGIENE OF THE ORAL CAVITY. A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY

Hygiene and Sanitation ◽

10.18821/0016-9900-2019-98-5-550-554 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 98 (5) ◽

pp. 550-554

Author(s):

Natalia N. Vlasova ◽

A. Yu. Turkina ◽

N. I. Prokhorov ◽

M. K. Makeeva ◽

A. A. Danilina ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Oral Hygiene ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Control Group ◽

Average Value ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Group 2 ◽

Index Value ◽

Motivating Factor ◽

Positive Effect ◽

Group 1

Aim of the study. To evaluate the effect of professional teeth whitening on the level of oral hygiene. Material and methods. A randomized controlled, prospective clinical trial was conducted in 2 groups of 30 people, in each. In group 1, professional oral hygiene and professional teeth whitening were performed using 25% hydrogen peroxide. In group 2, only professional oral hygiene was performed. Evaluated the dynamics of the hygienic index of Quigley-Hein in the modification of S. Turesky, 2 weeks, 1 month and 6 months after the procedure. Results. 6 months after the start of the study in group 1, the average value of the Quigley-Heine index in the modification of S. Turesky was significantly lower than before the at start of the study (1.24 ± 0.11 and 2.34 ± 0.14 respectively). In group 2, the index value after 6 months exceeded 2.0 and almost returned to the initial level (2.05 ± 0.06 and 2.44 ± 0.08, respectively). During the entire observation period in patients underwent professional teeth whitening, the level of oral hygiene was significantly higher than in the control group. Conclusion. Professional teeth whitening has a positive effect on the level of oral hygiene and is a significant motivating factor in maintaining oral health.

Download Full-text