MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566482341 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001799

Intraperitoneal Instillation of Lidocaine Improves Postoperative Analgesia at Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2016· article· en· W2566482341 on OpenAlexaff
Ruchira Patel, Jose C. A. Carvalho, Kristi Downey, Marcelo Kanczuk, Paul S. Bernstein, Naveed Siddiqui

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaLidocaineLocal anestheticBupivacainePlaceboAnalgesicSurgeryNauseaRandomized controlled trialVomiting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cesarean delivery is a commonly performed procedure worldwide. Despite improvements in balanced multimodal analgesia, there remains a proportion of women for whom postoperative pain relief and patient satisfaction are still inadequate. Intraperitoneal instillation of local anesthetic has been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain after abdominal surgery. We sought to investigate the effect of intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine on postcesarean delivery pain as part of a multimodal analgesia regimen. METHODS: We studied women scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was performed with 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine, fentanyl, and morphine. At the end of the cesarean delivery, immediately before parietal peritoneum or fascia closure, patients were randomized to receive either lidocaine (20 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine) or placebo (20 mL normal saline) instilled into the peritoneal cavity. The primary outcome was pain score on movement at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain score at rest and on movement at 2, 24, and 48 hours; maternal satisfaction score; analgesic consumption; incidence of nausea, vomiting, and itching; and return of bowel function. RESULTS: Two hundred four women were recruited. Baseline characteristics were similar between the lidocaine and placebo groups. Pain scores at 24 hours postcesarean delivery on movement (parameter estimate 0.02 [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.14 to 0.18]; P = .823) and at rest (parameter estimate 0.00 [95% CI -0.32 to 0.33]; P = .986) were similar in both groups. Pain scores at 2 hours postcesarean delivery on movement (parameter estimate -0.58 [95% CI -0.90 to -0.26]; P = .001) and at rest (parameter estimate -1.00 [95% CI -1.57 to -0.43]; P = .001) were lower in the lidocaine group. Subgroup analysis of patients with peritoneum closure revealed significantly lower pain scores at 24 hours on movement (parameter estimate -0.33 [95% CI -0.64 to -0.03]; P = .032) in the lidocaine group. The number of women requesting postoperative opioids for breakthrough pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine group compared with that of the placebo (40 [40%] vs 61 [65%], respectively, relative risk 0.59 [95% CI 0.43-0.81]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine improves early postoperative pain management after cesarean delivery. Furthermore, it reduces the number of women requesting systemic opioids in the immediate postpartum period. Women undergoing peritoneal closure may particularly benefit from this intervention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207