Lidocaine with epinephrine infiltration does not impair wound healing

Background: Local anaesthetic agents are frequently used to infiltrate wounds to delay nociceptive input in postoperative pain management. Aim: This study investigates the comparative effects of wound infiltration with lidocaine plain and lidocaine with epinephrine for postoperative pain relief at normal clinical doses. Methods: This is a prospective randomized double-blind study of a convenience sample of paediatric patients with postoperative wound healing characteristics after herniotomies. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups after written informed consent had been obtained from their legal guardians. Each patient received general anaesthesia. At the end of surgery, wounds were infiltrated using the assigned local anaesthetic agent. The healing characteristics and other outcomes were studied. Results: Forty-eight patients were enrolled into the study, 42 (87.5%) participated until discharge from the surgical clinic. A total of 9 (21.4%) females and 33 (78.6%) males were studied. The mean age in the lidocaine plain (Lid P) was 11.0 ± 4.7 months while lidocaine with epinephrine (Lid E) was 10.3 ± 4.4 months (p=0.3). The mean body weight in the Lid P and Lid E were 9.9 ± 2.6 kg and 9.4 ± 2.3 kg respectively (p=0.3). The mean lengths of surgical incision were 39.1 ± 0.5mm and 39.6 ± 0.4 mm for Lid P and Lid E respectively (p=0.4). The mean duration of analgesia in Lid P was 68.9 ± 11.8 mins and 89.0 ± 17.4 mins for Lid E (p=0.01). Wounds healed by primary intention by the 7th postoperative day in both groups. Conclusion: Wound infiltration with lidocaine with epinephrine did not impair wound healing in humans. Keywords: Lidocaine plain, Lidocaine with epinephrine, Infiltration, Wound healing