title: Analgesic efficacy of lidocaine for suction-assisted lipectomy with tumescent technique under general anesthesia: a randomized, double-masked, controlled trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Suction-assisted lipectomy is one of the most common procedures performed in plastic surgery. To minimize blood loss and to obtain adequate analgesia, a liquid solution is infiltrated into the subcutaneous plane before suction. The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of lidocaine in the infiltration solution reduces postoperative pain.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospective, randomized, double-masked, clinical trial was designed. Each side of patients' body zones to be treated with suction-assisted lipectomy was randomized to receive infiltration solution with or without lidocaine. Treatment allocation was performed using computer-generated random numbers in permuted blocks of eight. Pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale and registered 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours after the procedure.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The trial was stopped after a first interim analysis. The use of lidocaine in the dilute solution reduced pain by 0.5 point on the visual analogue scale (95 percent CI, 0.3 to 0.8; p<0.001). The effect was independent of the suctioned body zone (p=0.756), and lasted until 18 hours after surgery. Its analgesic effect was lost at the 24-hour postoperative control. Pain increased an average of 0.018 point on the visual analogue scale per hour (95 percent CI, 0.001 to 0.036; p=0.043).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of lidocaine in the infiltration solution is effective in postoperative pain control until 18 hours after surgery. Nevertheless, its clinical effect is limited and clinically irrelevant, and therefore it is no longer used by the authors.
  
  
  METHODS
  Therapeutic, I.
authors.affiliation: Santiago, Chile From Hospital Clínico J. J. Aguirre; Clínica Alemana; Hospital Militar de Santiago; Clínica Santa María; Clínica Las Condes; Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; and Universidad de Chile.
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Danilla
authors.forename: Montserrat
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Fontbona
authors.forename: Victoria Diaz
authors.initials: VD
authors.lastname: de Valdés
authors.forename: Bruno
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Dagnino
authors.forename: Juan Pablo
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Sorolla
authors.forename: Guillermo
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Israel
authors.forename: Susana
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Searle
authors.forename: Hernán
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Norambuena
authors.forename: Rodrigo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Cabello
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000768:Anesthesia, General / Q000379:methods; D000779:Anesthetics, Local / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015552:Injections, Intralesional; D007430:Intraoperative Care / Q000379:methods; D008012:Lidocaine / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D015187:Lipectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D010147:Pain Measurement; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012016:Reference Values; D018570:Risk Assessment; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D000779:Anesthetics, Local; D008012:Lidocaine
references.citation: Hetter GP. The effect of low-dose epinephrine on the hematocrit drop following lipolysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1984;8:19–21
references.citation: Klein JA. The tumescent technique: Anesthesia and modified liposuction technique. Dermatol Clin. 1990;8:425–437
references.citation: Trott SA, Beran SJ, Rohrich RJ, Kenkel JM, Adams WP Jr, Klein KW. Safety considerations and fluid resuscitation in liposuction: An analysis of 53 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:2220–2229
references.citation: Hanke CW, Bernstein G, Bullock S. Safety of tumescent liposuction in 15,336 patients: National survey results. Dermatol Surg. 1995;21:459–462
references.citation: Kaplan B, Moy RL. Comparison of room temperature and warmed local anesthetic solution for tumescent liposuction: A randomized double-blind study. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22:707–709
references.citation: Rubin JP, Xie Z, Davidson C, Rosow CE, Chang Y, May JW Jr. Rapid absorption of tumescent lidocaine above the clavicles: A prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115:1744–1751
references.citation: Böni R. Tumescent liposuction: Efficacy of a lower lidocaine dose (400mg/l). Dermatology. 2010;220:223–225
references.citation: Hatef DA, Brown SA, Lipschitz AH, Kenkel JM. Efficacy of lidocaine for pain control in subcutaneous infiltration during liposuction. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29:122–128
references.citation: Klein JA. Tumescent technique for regional anesthesia permits lidocaine doses of 35mg/kg for liposuction. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1990;16:248–263
references.citation: Ostad A, Kageyama N, Moy RL. Tumescent anesthesia with a lidocaine dose of 55mg/kg is safe for liposuction. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22:921–927
references.citation: Llanos S, Dagnino B, Ponce D, et al. Effect of subcutaneous lidocaine infiltration on blood loss secondary to corporal lipoaspiration: A prospective, randomized, double-masked clinical trial. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:738–742
references.citation: Augustin M, Maier K, Sommer B, Sattler G, Herberger K. Double-blind, randomized, intraindividual comparison study of the efficacy of prilocaine and lidocaine in tumescent local anesthesia. Dermatology. 2010;221:248–252
references.citation: Craig SB, Concannon MJ, McDonald GA, Puckett CL. The antibacterial effects of tumescent liposuction fluid. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:666–670
references.citation: Miller MA, Shelley WB. Antibacterial properties of lidocaine on bacteria isolated from dermal lesions. Arch Dermatol. 1985;121:1157–1159
references.citation: Ohsuka S, Ohta M, Masuda K, Arakawa Y, Kaneda T, Kato N. Lidocaine hydrochloride and acetylsalicylate kill bacteria by disrupting the bacterial membrane potential in different ways. Microbiol Immunol. 1994;38:429–434