Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39367703›Full record

ArticlePaediatric anaesthesia2025

Intravenous lidocaine infusion therapy and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in adolescents undergoing idiopathic scoliosis correction: A retrospective study.

Rachel Bates, Fiona Cave, Nicholas West, Jeffrey N Bone, Bradley Hofmann, Firoz Miyanji, Gillian R Lauder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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.

Rachel BatesDepartment of Anesthesia, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Fiona CaveDepartment of Neurodiagnostics, Kelowna General Hospital, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Nicholas WestDepartment of Anesthesia, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8382-5136
Jeffrey N BoneResearch Institute, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Bradley HofmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Firoz MiyanjiResearch Institute, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gillian R LauderDepartment of Anesthesia, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

BC Children's Hospital Research InstituteBiotalent Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPosterior spinal instrumentation and fusion is an established surgical procedure for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is standard practice for this procedure. Anesthetic agents can have different, but significant, effects on neurophysiological monitoring outcomes.

aimTo determine if intravenous lidocaine infusion therapy has an impact on the intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

methodsFollowing ethical approval, we conducted a retrospective review of charts and the archived intraoperative neurophysiological data of adolescents undergoing posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring data included the amplitude of motor evoked potentials and the amplitude and latency of somatosensory evoked potentials. A cohort who received intraoperative lidocaine infusion were compared to those who did not.

resultsEighty-one patients were included in this analysis, who had surgery between February 4, 2016 and April 22, 2021: 39 had intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion and 42 did not. Based on hourly snapshot data, there was no evidence that lidocaine infusion had a detrimental effect on the measured change from baseline for MEP amplitudes in either lower (mean difference 41.9; 95% confidence interval -304.5 to 388.3; p = .182) or upper limbs (MD -279.0; 95% CI -562.5 to 4.4; p = .054). There was also no evidence of any effect on the measured change from baseline for SSEP amplitudes in either lower (MD 16.4; 95% CI -17.7 to 50.5; p = .345) or upper limbs (MD -2.4; 95% CI -14.5 to 9.8; p = .701). Finally, there was no evidence of a difference in time to first reportable neurophysiological event (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 0.61 to 2.09; p = .680).

conclusionsData from these two cohorts provide preliminary evidence that intravenous lidocaine infusion has no negative impact on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during PSIF for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, LocalEvoked Potentials, MotorEvoked Potentials, SomatosensoryIntraoperative Neurophysiological MonitoringLidocaineScoliosisSpinal FusionAdolescentChildFemaleHumansInfusions, IntravenousMaleRetrospective StudiesAnesthetics, LocalLidocaineadolescent idiopathic scoliosisintraoperative neurophysiological monitoringintravenous lidocaine infusionposterior spinal instrumentation and fusion

Identifiers

PMID39367703
PMCPMC11626343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.