No abstract

BackgroundUse of minimally invasive surgical techniques for lung resection surgery (LRS), such as video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS), has increased in recent years. However, there is little information about the best anesthetic technique in this context. This surgical approach is associated with a lower intensity of postoperative pain, and its use has been proposed in programs for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This study compares the severity of postoperative complications in patients undergoing LRS who have received lidocaine intraoperatively either intravenously or via paravertebral administration versus saline.Methods/designWe will conduct a single-center randomized controlled trial involving 153 patients undergoing LRS through a thoracoscopic approach. The patients will be randomly assigned to one of the following study groups: intravenous lidocaine with more paravertebral thoracic (PVT) saline, PVT lidocaine with more intravenous saline, or intravenous remifentanil with more PVT saline. The primary outcome will be the comparison of the postoperative course through Clavien-Dindo classification. Furthermore, we will compare the perioperative pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response by monitoring biomarkers in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and blood, as well as postoperative analgesic consumption between the three groups of patients. We will use an ANOVA to compare quantitative variables and a chi-squared test to compare qualitative variables.DiscussionThe development of less invasive surgical techniques means that anesthesiologists must adapt their perioperative management protocols and look for anesthetic techniques that provide good analgesic quality and allow rapid rehabilitation of the patient, as proposed in the ERAS protocols. The administration of a continuous infusion of intravenous lidocaine has proven to be useful and safe for the management of other types of surgery, as demonstrated in colorectal cancer. We want to know whether the continuous administration of lidocaine by a paravertebral route can be substituted with the intravenous administration of this local anesthetic in a safe and effective way while avoiding the risks inherent in the use of regional anesthetic techniques. In this way, this technique could be used in a safe and effective way in ERAS programs for pulmonary resection.Trial registrationEudraCT, 2016–004271-52; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03905837. Protocol number IGGFGG-2016 version 4.0, 27th April 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3677-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract