RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A manipulação da atividade neuronal periférica pode alterar a excitabilidade do córtex motor primário; entretanto, não se sabe se esse fenômeno ocorre após a injeção intramuscular de lidocaína. Investigaram-se alterações eletrofisiológicas através de estimulação magnética transcraniana após injeção de lidocaína (0,5mL, 2%) no músculo primeiro interósseo dorsal da mão dominante de indivíduos saudáveis. MÉTODOS: Estudo paralelo, exploratório, duplo-cego, realizado em laboratório. Vinte e oito voluntários saudáveis (idade média: 29,6 anos, 15 mulheres). Foram avaliados através de estimulação magnética transcraniana no limiar motor de repouso, potencial evocado motor, facilitação intracortical e inibição intracortical. A injeção de lidocaína (grupo LID) foi comparada com agulhamento a seco (grupo DRY), injeção de solução salina (grupo SAL) e nenhuma intervenção (grupo CTL). Os participantes foram distribuídos randomicamente em cada grupo. Força muscular e medidas de excitabilidade periférica (reobase e cronaxia) foram também estudadas. As avaliações ocorreram em quatro momentos: imediatamente antes e após a intervenção e 30 e 60 minutos após a intervenção. RESULTADOS: Foi utilizado modelo linear generalizado para identificar as diferenças entre os grupos LID, DRY, SAL e CTL. Os resultados mostraram que o potencial evocado motor foi modificado no grupo LID (p<0,005). CONCLUSÃO: Em indivíduos saudáveis, a injeção de lidocaína intramuscular pode alterar o potencial evocado motor.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The manipulation of peripheral neuronal activity can alter the excitability of the primary motor cortex; however, it is not known whether this occurs after intramuscular injections of lidocaine. Therefore, the investigation focused on neurophysiological changes, assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation, after lidocaine (0.5mL, 2%) injection in the first dorsal interosseous muscle of the dominant hand of healthy individuals. METHODS: Exploratory, double-blind, parallel laboratory study. Twenty-eight healthy subjects (mean age: 29.6 years, 15 women). Measurements with transcranial magnetic stimulation included resting motor threshold, motor evoked potential, intracortical facilitation, and short intracortical inhibition. Lidocaine injection (LID group) was compared to dry needling (DRY group), saline injection (SAL group), and no intervention (CTL group). Participants were randomly placed in each group. Muscle strength and measures of peripheral excitability (rheobase and chronaxie) were also evaluated to detect whether the interventions generated changes in the peripheral neuromuscular excitability. Evaluations were performed over four time points: immediately before and after intervention and 30 and 60 minutes after intervention. RESULTS: A generalized linear model was used to identify differences between the LID, DRY, and SAL groups and the CTL group. The results showed that motor evoked potentials were modified in the LID group (p<0.005). CONCLUSION: The injection of lidocaine into the first dorsal interosseous muscle in the dominant hand of healthy adults alters motor evoked potentials.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Efeitos adversos durante a estimulação não invasiva do cérebro são eventos considerados raros. O objetivo deste estudo foi apresentar um caso de paciente com cefaleia intensa com sinais autonômicos após estimulação magnética transcraniana de pulso único. RELATO DO CASO: Paciente do sexo feminino, 28 anos, saudável, voluntariamente se apresentou para participar de pesquisa sobre avaliação de excitabilidade cortical motora após a realização de injeção de lidocaína no músculo primeiro interósseo dorsal. O limiar motor em repouso foi estimado em quatro momentos: antes do procedimento, imediatamente após o procedimento, 30 minutos e uma hora após o procedimento. Foram realizados ao final do experimento 240 pulsos. A participante referiu cefaleia, de leve intensidade, que rapidamente progrediu para cefaleia intensa, hemicraniana à esquerda, na região onde os pulsos da estimulação magnética transcraniana foram aplicados. Em associação à dor, apresentou náuseas, vômitos, fotofobia, hiperemia conjuntival, lacrimejamento e edema palpebral ipsilaterais, com necessidade de atendimento em unidade de emergência. CONCLUSÃO: É possível que intensidades supralimiares (>100% do limiar motor em repouso) em estimulação magnética transcraniana de pulso único possam predispor a efeitos adversos. Outros fatores como anatomia do crânio, impedância elétrica, idade, sexo, estado cognitivo e afetivo, uso de fármacos, níveis hormonais, concentração de neurotransmissores e expressão de receptores, fatores genéticos e ciclo circadiano também podem ser implicados. Não há modelos de segurança bem estabelecidos para guiar protocolos de avaliação com estimulação magnética transcraniana de pulso único, considerada uma técnica com baixa incidência de efeitos adversos e com baixa demanda de atenção de estudos sobre segurança.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adverse effects during noninvasive stimulation of the brain are rare events. The objective of this study is to present a patient´s case with an intense headache with autonomic signs after single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. CASE REPORT: A 28-year old female patient, volunteered to participate in a study on the evaluation of motor cortical excitability after the injection of lidocaine in the first dorsal interosseous muscle. The resting motor threshold was estimated at four moments: before the procedure, immediately after the procedure, 30 minutes, and one hour after the procedure. At the end of the experiment, 240 pulses were performed. The participant reported mild-intensity headache that rapidly progressed to severe, left hemicranial headache, the same region where the transcranial magnetic stimulation pulses were applied. In association with the pain, she had nausea, vomiting, photophobia, conjunctival hyperemia, lacrimation, and ipsilateral eyelid edema, requiring emergency care. CONCLUSION: It is possible that supraliminal intensities (>100% of resting motor threshold) in single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation may predispose to adverse effects. Other factors such as skull anatomy, electrical impedance, age, gender, cognitive and affective status, use of medications, hormone levels, the concentration of neurotransmitters and receptor expression, genetic factors and the circadian cycle may also be involved. There are no well-established safety models to guide assessment protocols with single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, considered a technique with a low incidence of adverse effects and with little demand for safety studies.

OBJECTIVES: Video laparoscopic bariatric surgery is the preferred surgical technique for treating morbid obesity. However, pneumoperitoneum can pose risks to the kidneys by causing a decrease in renal blood flow. Furthermore, as in other surgical procedures, laparoscopic bariatric surgery triggers an acute inflammatory response. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin is an early and accurate biomarker of renal injury, as well as of the inflammatory response. Anesthetic drugs could offer some protection for the kidneys and could attenuate the acute inflammatory response from surgical trauma. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of two types of anesthetics, propofol and sevoflurane, on the serum levels of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin during the perioperative period in laparoscopic bariatric surgery. METHODS: Sixty-four patients scheduled for laparoscopic bariatric surgery were randomized into two anesthesia groups and were administered either total intravenous anesthesia (propofol) or inhalation anesthesia (sevoflurane). In the perioperative period, blood samples were collected at three time points (before anesthesia, 6 hours after pneumoperitoneum and 24 hours after pneumoperitoneum) and urine output was measured for 24 hours. Acute kidney injuries were evaluated by examining both the clinical and laboratory parameters during the postoperative period. The differences between the groups were compared using non-parametric tests. ReBEC (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/recruiting/): RBR-8wt2fy RESULTS: None of the patients developed an acute kidney injury during the study and no significant differences were found between the serum neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin levels of the groups during the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: The choice of anesthetic drug, either propofol or sevoflurane, did not affect the serum levels of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin during the perioperative period in laparoscopic bariatric surgery.