The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Maximum recommended doses of local anesthetics: A multifactorial concept
Abstract
The current recommendations regarding maximum doses of local anesthetics presented in textbooks, or by the responsible pharmaceutical companies, are not evidence based (ie, determined by randomized and controlled studies). Rather, decisions on recommending certain maximum local anesthetic doses have been made in part by extrapolations from animal experiments, clinical experiences from the use of various doses and measurement of blood concentrations, case reports of local anesthetic toxicity, and pharmacokinetic results. The common occurrence of central nervous system toxicity symptoms when large lidocaine doses were used in infiltration anesthesia led to the recommendation of just 200 mg as the maximum dose, which has remained unchanged for more than 50 years. In most cases, there is no scientific justification for presenting exact milligram doses or mg/kg doses as maximum dose recommendations. Instead, only clinically adequate and safe doses (ranges) that are block specific are justified, taking into consideration the site of local anesthetic injection and patient-related factors such as age, organ dysfunctions, and pregnancy, which may influence the effect and the pharmacokinetics of the local anesthetic. Epinephrine in concentrations of 2.5 to 5 microg/mL should be added to the local anesthetic solution when large doses are administered, providing there are no contraindications for the use of epinephrine. As a rule, conditions (eg, end-stage pregnancy, high age in epidural, or spinal block) or diseases (uremia) that may increase the rate of the initial uptake of the local anesthetic are indications to reduce the dose in comparison to one normally used for young, healthy, and nonpregnant adults. On the other hand, the reduced clearance of local anesthetics associated with renal, hepatic, and cardiac diseases is the most important reason to reduce the dose for repeated or continuous administration. The magnitude of the reduction should be related to the expected influence of the pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cherobin, A. C. F. P., & Tavares, G. T. (2020) · Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia · doi:10.1016/j.abd.2019.09.025 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- ROSENBERG, P., VEERING, B., & URMEY, W.
- Venue
- Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 564-575
- ISSN
- 1098-7339 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081465151
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Maximum recommended doses of local anesthetics: A multifactorial concept. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rapm.2004.08.003
- The paper
- ROSENBERG, P., VEERING, B., & URMEY, W. (2004). Maximum recommended doses of local anesthetics: A multifactorial concept. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rapm.2004.08.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.