Focus on mobilisation after lower abdominal surgery. A double-blind randomised comparison of epidural bupivacaine with morphine vs. lidocaine with morphine for postoperative analgesia

BACKGROUND: Epidural infusion of morphine, usually with bupivacaine, for postoperative pain relief has proved to be safe and effective. Lidocaine with its short duration of action and low toxicity may be an alternative to bupivacaine. The clinical importance of the choice of local anaesthetic drug on mobilisation after lower abdominal surgery has not been studied previously. METHODS: A total of 52 patients was randomised to epidural infusion of morphine (1.6-4.4 micrograms.kg-1.h-1) with either lidocaine (0.44-0.98 mg.kg-1.h-1) or bupivacaine (0.10-0.28 mg.kg-1.h-1) in a double-blind fashion. The time to mobilisation, degree of pain relief, blood pressure, respiration and motor function were recorded at regular intervals postoperatively for 40 h. Serum concentrations of lidocaine, its main metabolite monoethylglycinexylidide (MEGX) and bupivacaine were measured at 3, 15 and 40 h. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics between the two patient groups. There were no significant differences in the time from the end of surgery to the time the patients were able to stand without support (bupivacaine: median 24 h (interquartile range (IQR): 22-31), lidocaine: median 28 h (IQR 23-40), P = 0.15) or were able to walk without support (bupivacaine: median 46 h (IQR 28-62), lidocaine: median 48 h (IQR 35-54), P = 0.78). No significant differences between the groups were recorded with respect to pain relief, blood pressure, respiration, sedation score and motor function. The plasma concentration of lidocaine and bupivacaine increased significantly during the treatment period (P < 0.01 for both drugs), but not the concentration of MEGX. The highest venous lidocaine concentration was 17.5 mumol/l and the highest bupivacaine concentration was 18.8 mumol/l. There was a significant correlation between the concentration of both lidocaine and bupivacaine and the concentration of alpha 1-acid glycoprotein (AAG) (lidocaine: r = 0.77, P < 0.001, bupivacaine: r = 0.60, P < 0.001), suggesting that the free fraction of the drugs did not increase. No patients showed serious signs of toxicity. The epidural infusion rates remained stable in both groups during the study period. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically or statistically significant differences in the postoperative course after lower abdominal surgery in patients who received an epidural infusion of morphine combined with bupivacaine as compared to patients who received morphine with lidocaine. Further clinical studies to establish the place of lidocaine in postoperative epidural analgesia should be performed.