Evidence Hub

Evaluation of lidocaine as a dual-route prophylaxis in postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis and GRADE evaluation

Abo Zeid M, Khalefa K, Wagdy M, Alkheder A, Gerges M, Hussein HK, Hafedh HJ, Mohammed RM et al.

Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026

463 participants

Abstract

Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common postoperative problem following urinary catheterization. Current pharmacologic options have limited use due to side effects. Lidocaine, with analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antimuscarinic properties, may provide an effective and safer alternative. This study aims to systematically evaluate (1) the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine compared with normal saline, (2) the efficacy of intravesical lidocaine compared with normal saline, and (3) postoperative outcomes including opioid requirements, as specified in the PROSPERO registration (CRD420251155678). A systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing intravenous or intravesical lidocaine with normal saline for CRBD prevention in adult surgical patients were included. Primary outcomes were CRBD incidence and severity at predefined postoperative time points. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption when reported. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by GRADE and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Five RCTs, including 463 patients, were analyzed. Lidocaine significantly reduced moderate-to-severe CRBD compared with saline at 0 h (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.32-0.55), 1 h (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28, 0.61), and 2 h (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12, 0.90), but not at 6 h (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07, 1.22). No significant difference was observed in postoperative…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 463 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free