Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37768699›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2023

How long to wait after local infiltration anaesthesia: systematic review.

Mohammad Suleman Bajwa, Muhammad Mustehsan Bashir, Mohammad Hamza Bajwa, Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Aizaz Salahuddin, Ahmad Hussain, Farooq Shahzad

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A Review of the Lidocaine in the Perioperative Period.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammad Suleman BajwaDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery/Mayo Burn Centre, Mayo Hospital, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-8485-4366
Muhammad Mustehsan BashirDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery/Mayo Burn Centre, Mayo Hospital, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Mohammad Hamza BajwaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Zafar IqbalDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery/Mayo Burn Centre, Mayo Hospital, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Muhammad Aizaz SalahuddinDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery/Mayo Burn Centre, Mayo Hospital, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Ahmad HussainDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery/Mayo Burn Centre, Mayo Hospital, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Farooq ShahzadPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
King Edward Medical University · PKAga Khan University · PKMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConflicting evidence exists regarding the optimal waiting time for stable analgesic and vasoconstrictive effects after local infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine. An objective review is needed to dispel surgical dogma.

methodsThis systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022362414) included RCTs and prospective cohort studies. Primary outcomes were (1) onset of analgesia and (2) onset of stable hypoperfusion, assessed directly, or measured indirectly using perfusion imaging. Other data extracted include waiting strategies, means of outcome assessment, anaesthetic concentrations, volume/endpoint of infiltration, and injection sites. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Articles describing waiting strategies were critically appraised by the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.

resultsTwenty-four articles were analysed, comprising 1013 participants. Ten investigated analgesia onset. Their pooled mean was 2.1 min (range 0.4-9.0 min). This varied with anatomic site and targeted nerve diameter. Fourteen articles investigated onset of stable hypoperfusion. Four observed bleeding intraoperatively, finding the minimum time to hypoperfusion at 7.0 min in the eyelid skin and 25.0 min in the upper limb. The ten remaining studies used perfusion imaging, reporting a wide range of results (0.0-30.0 min) due to differences in anatomic sites and depth, resolution and artefacts. Studies using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging correlated with clinical observations. Thirteen articles discussed waiting strategies, seven relating to large-volume tumescent local infiltration anaesthesia. Different waiting strategies exist for emergency, arthroscopic and cosmetic surgeries, according to the degree of hypoperfusion required. In tumescent liposuction, waiting 10.0-60.0 min is the norm.

conclusionCurrent literature suggests that around 2 min are required for most patients to achieve complete analgesia in all sites and with all anaesthesia concentrations. Waiting around 7 min in eyelids and at least 25 min in other regions results in optimal hypoperfusion. The strategies discussed inform decisions of when and how long to wait.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, LocalPain ManagementEpinephrineHumansLidocaineProspective StudiesEpinephrineLidocaine

Identifiers

PMID37768699
PMCPMC10538258
OpenAlexW4387115600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.