ÆßÃõ¼º½

+AA
ÆßÃõ¼º½Logo_New-2017-300x165
Back
Clinician Article

Lidocaine for preventing postoperative sore throat.



  • Tanaka Y
  • Nakayama T
  • Nishimori M
  • Tsujimura Y
  • Kawaguchi M
  • Sato Y
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14;2015(7):CD004081. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004081.pub3. (Review)
Read evidence summary
Disciplines
  • Anesthesiology
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 6/7

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common side-effect of general anaesthesia and is reported by between 30% and 70% of patients after tracheal intubation. The likelihood of a sore throat varies with the type, diameter, and cuff pressure of the endotracheal tube used. If intubation is essential, it may be helpful to give drugs prophylactically to alleviate postoperative sore throat. Local anaesthetics and steroids have been used for this purpose. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and any harm caused by topical and systemic lidocaine used prophylactically to prevent postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2013), and EMBASE (1980 to October 2013). We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The original search was undertaken in June 2007. We reran the search in February 2015 and found four studies of interest. We will deal with those studies when we next update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical and systemic prophylactic lidocaine therapy versus control (using air or saline) that reported on the risk and severity of postoperative sore throat as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information, such as the risk of any adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies involving 1940 participants in this updated review. Of those 1940 participants, 952 received topical or systemic lidocaine therapy and 795 were allocated to the control groups. Topical and systemic lidocaine therapy appeared to reduce the risk of postoperative sore throat (16 studies, 1774 participants, risk ratio (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85), the quality of the evidence was low), although when only high-quality trials were included (eight studies, 814 participants) the effect was no longer significant (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.09). Lidocaine given systemically in two studies (320 participants) did not reveal evidence of an effect (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05 ). The severity of sore throat as measured on a visual-analogue scale (VAS) was reduced by lidocaine therapy (six trials, 611 participants, (mean difference (MD) -10.80, 95% CI -14.63 to -6.98). The adverse effects of lidocaine were not reported in these studies, though toxicity is generally rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In our revised systematic review, although the results of included studies show generally positive results, they should be interpreted carefully. The effect size of lidocaine appeared to be affected by study quality; drug concentration; route of administration; management of cuff pressure during anaesthesia; the included population; and the type of outcome measured.


Clinical Comments

Anesthesiology

Interesting systematic review with meta-analysis that neatly summarizes the evidence for the use of lignocaine to prevent sore throat following the insertion of endotracheal tubes. The review ignores the fact that sore throat also follows from GA where a tracheal tube is not used. There is also some confusion between the abstract, plain language summary and main text with regards to the inclusion and interpretation of evidence with and without the use of lignocaine intravenously that muddy the waters a bit in the proper interpretation of the evidence. In particular, it seems from the SoF table suggests no discrimination between routes of administration. Many readers would feel that giving lignocaine topically as opposed to intravenously constitutes significant clinical heterogeneity and this should preclude pooling of this data. This dilemma should be discussed more openly in this review.

Register for free access to all Professional content

Register