The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Facilitates Acute Rehabilitation after Laparoscopic Colectomy
Open accessAbstract
Background: Intravenous infusion of lidocaine decreases postoperative pain and speeds the return of bowel function. The authors therefore tested the hypothesis that perioperative lidocaine infusion facilitates acute rehabilitation protocol in patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Methods: Forty patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic colectomy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (bolus injection of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine at induction of anesthesia, then a continuous infusion of 2 mg.kg.h intraoperatively and 1.33 mg.kg.h for 24 h postoperatively) or an equal volume of saline. All patients received similar intensive postoperative rehabilitation. Postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, and fatigue scores were measured. Times to first flatus, defecation, and hospital discharge were recorded. Postoperative endocrine (cortisol and catecholamines) and metabolic (leukocytes, C-reactive protein, and glucose) responses were measured for 48 h. Data (presented as median [25-75% interquartile range], lidocaine vs. saline groups) were analyzed using Mann-Whitney tests. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. Times to first flatus (17 [11-24] vs. 28 [25-33] h; P<0.001), defecation (28 [24-37] vs. 51 [41-70] h; P=0.001), and hospital discharge (2 [2-3] vs. 3 [3-4] days; P=0.001) were significantly shorter in patients who received lidocaine. Lidocaine significantly reduced opioid consumption (8 [5-18] vs. 22 [14-36] mg; P=0.005) and postoperative pain and fatigue scores. In contrast, endocrine and metabolic responses were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: Intravenous lidocaine improves postoperative analgesia, fatigue, and bowel function after laparoscopic colectomy. These benefits are associated with a significant reduction in hospital stay.
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
White, P. F., Kehlet, H., Neal, J. M., Schricker, T., Carr, D. B., & Carli, F. (2007) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000263034.96885.e1 · Cited by 485
Weibel, S., Jelting, Y., Pace, N. L., Helf, A., Eberhart, L. H., Hahnenkamp, K., Hollmann, M. W., Poepping, D. M., Schnabel, A., & Kranke, P. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009642.pub3 · Cited by 404
Foo, I., Macfarlane, A. J. R., Srivastava, D., Bhaskar, A., Barker, H., Knaggs, R., Eipe, N., & Smith, A. F. (2021) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.15270 · Cited by 284
Weibel, S., Jokinen, J., Pace, N. L., Schnabel, A., Hollmann, M. W., Hahnenkamp, K., Eberhart, L. H. J., Poepping, D. M., Afshari, A., & Kranke, P. (2016) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aew101 · Cited by 266
McGreevy, K., Bottros, M. M., & Raja, S. N. (2011) · European Journal of Pain Supplements · doi:10.1016/j.eujps.2011.08.013 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaba, A., Laurent, S. R., Detroz, B. J., Sessler, D. I., Durieux, M. E., Lamy, M. L., & Joris, J. L.
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2007-01-01
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 11-18
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2111487488
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Facilitates Acute Rehabilitation after Laparoscopic Colectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000542-200701000-00007
- The paper
- Kaba, A., Laurent, S. R., Detroz, B. J., Sessler, D. I., Durieux, M. E., Lamy, M. L., & Joris, J. L. (2007). Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Facilitates Acute Rehabilitation after Laparoscopic Colectomy. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200701000-00007
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.