Periprostatic nerve block alone versus combined with perineal pudendal nerve block or intrarectal local anesthesia during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost of combinations of perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block and intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block with the standard technique (periprostatic nerve block). METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized prospective controlled trial. Patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen values (prostate-specific antigen ≥4 ng/mL) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings were included in the study. Patients with anorectal diseases, chronic prostatitis, previous history of prostate biopsy and anorectal surgery were excluded from the study. A total of 148 patients (group 1 [periprostatic nerve block], n = 48; group 2 [intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block], n = 51; group 3 [perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block], n = 49) were included in the final analysis. Pain during insertion and manipulation of the transrectal ultrasound probe was recorded as visual analog scale 1, pain during penetration of the biopsy needle into the prostate and sampling was recorded as visual analog scale 2, and pain during the entire procedure recorded as visual analog scale 3. RESULTS: The mean visual analog scale 1 score was significantly lower in group 3, when compared with group 1 and group 2 (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the mean visual analog scale 2 score. The mean visual analog scale 3 score was significantly lower in group 3 when compared with other groups (P < 0.001). The total cost for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in the intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block group was significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of perineal pudendal nerve block and periprostatic nerve block provides more effective pain control than intrarectal local anesthesia plus periprostatic nerve block and periprostatic nerve block alone, with similar complication rates and without increasing cost.

An Economic Analysis of MAC Versus WALANT: A Trigger Finger Release Surgery Case Study.

BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in wide awake hand surgery, also referred to as "wide awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet" (WALANT) surgery. Using a model of single trigger finger release (TFR) surgery, a hypothesis was made that WALANT would result in decreased hospital time and cost than patients receiving sedation with monitored anesthetic care (MAC). METHODS: Consecutive cases of single TFR surgery with MAC were compared with WALANT. All surgeries were performed in the same manner, at the same facility, and by the same surgeon. Total operating room (OR) time, surgical time, recovery time, and anesthesia costs were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 78 patients: 31 MAC and 47 WALANT. The MAC group averaged 27.2 minutes of OR time; the WALANT group averaged 25.2 minutes. The MAC group surgical time was 10.2 minutes versus WALANT of 10.4 minutes. Post-operatively, the MAC group averaged 72.3 minutes in the recovery room compared with WALANT group of 30.2 minutes. Each case performed under MAC had a minimum of excess charges from anesthesia of approximately $105. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing single TFR surgery under WALANT trended toward less time in the OR, had similar surgical times, and spent significantly less time in the recovery room, compared with MAC, thereby resulting in less indirect costs. Each MAC case also had minimum direct excess anesthesia charges of $105, which knowingly underestimates overall charges as it excludes material and fixed costs associated with the delivery of anesthesia. Avoiding sedation for high-volume procedures such as TFR may result in significant systemic savings to payers, and in the future with bundling and episode-based payments can become increasingly important to patients, facilities, and surgeons.

Wide Awake Hand Surgery.

Wide awake hand surgery employs local-only anesthesia with low-dose epinephrine to create a bloodless field without the use of an arm tourniquet. Despite traditional teaching, evidence-based medicine suggests epinephrine is safe for use in hand and digital anesthesia. Eliminating an arm tourniquet reduces the requirement for sedation and general anesthetic. This confers particular advantage in surgeries such as tendon repairs, tendon transfers, and soft tissue releases in which intraoperative active motion can used to optimize outcomes. The wide awake approach also confers significant benefit to patients, providers, and health care systems alike due to efficiencies and cost savings.

Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine Infiltration on the Management of Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Importance: Liposomal bupivacaine is a novel extended-duration anesthetic that has recently been used for local infiltration in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Athough liposomal bupivacaine is widely used, it is unknown if the benefits justify the cost in the veteran population at our institution. Objective: To evaluate a change in practice: the effect of local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing primary TKA. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients who underwent primary TKA at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center before (March 3, 2013-March 2, 2014) and after (March 3, 2014-March 2, 2015) the implementation of liposomal bupivacaine for local infiltration in TKA. Intervention: Drug utilization evaluation of liposomal bupivacaine for local infiltration in TKA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of opioids after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Results: Among 199 patients, those who received liposomal bupivacaine after primary TKA (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [6.9] years; 93 males and 5 females) had a reduced median opioid use in the first 24 hours after surgery compared with those who did not receive liposomal bupivacaine (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [8.4] years; 95 males and 6 females; [intravenous morphine equivalents, 12.50 vs 22.50 mg; P = .001]). The use of patient-controlled analgesia was also reduced among patients who received liposomal bupivacaine vs those who did not (49 vs 91; P < .001). A reduction in the use of antiemetics was observed in the first 24 hours after surgery (13 vs 34; P = .001) and in the postanesthesia care unit among those who received liposomal bupivacaine vs those who did not (4 vs 20; P = .001). The number of patients in the postanesthesia care unit with no pain was improved among those who received liposomal bupivacaine vs those who did not (44 vs 19; P < .001). Although median (interquartile range) pain scores in the postanesthesia care unit were improved among patients who received liposomal bupivacaine vs those who did not (4.0 [0.0-6.6] vs 5.5 [3.0-7.5]; P = .001), patients who received liposomal bupivacaine had greater median (interquartile range) pain scores 48 hours (5.5 [4.0-7.0] vs 5.0 [3.0-6.0]; P = .01), 72 hours (5.0 [4.0-6.0] vs 4.0 [2.0-6.0]; P = .002), and 96 hours (5.0 [3.0-6.5] vs 4.0 [1.0-5.0]; P = .003) after surgery than those who did not receive liposomal bupivacaine. There was no difference in the median length of stay between the 2 groups. Institutional cost savings was estimated at $27 000 per year. Conclusions and Relevance: Local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine reduces use of opioids in the first 24 hours after primary TKA. Similarly, reduction in antiemetic use and improved postoperative pain are also seen in the first 24 hours after surgery but are limited to this time frame. Furthermore, a positive institutional cost savings was observed.

Can the choice of the local anesthetic have an impact on ambulatory surgery perioperative costs? Chloroprocaine for popliteal block in outpatient foot surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Short-acting regional anesthetics have already been successfully used for peripheral nerve blocks in an ambulatory surgery setting. However, the impact on direct and indirect perioperative costs comparing 2 different short-acting local anesthetics has not been performed yet. DESIGN: Observational, prospective, case-control, cost-minimization study. SETTING: Operating room, regional hospital PATIENTS: One hundred adult American Society of Anesthesiologists status I-III patients scheduled for popliteal block after minor ambulatory foot surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Application of 30 mL chloroprocaine 3% or of 30 mL mepivacaine 1.5% for anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Cost-minimization evaluation. Direct and indirect perioperative costs were calculated. Block success, onset time and block duration, patient satisfaction, and unplanned outpatient visits or readmissions after discharge were also assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Onset time (sensory: 4.3 ± 2.4 vs 11.5 ± 3.2 minutes; motor: 7.1 ± 3.7 vs 18.4 ± 4.5 minutes) and block duration (sensory: 105 ± 26 vs 317 ± 46 minutes; motor: 91 ± 25 vs 216 ± 31 minutes) were significantly shorter (P < .001) when chloroprocaine 3% was used. This translated to P < .001, basically due to a faster discharge home 55 ± 1 vs 175 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) in favor of chloroprocaine 3%, without negatively affecting either block efficacy or patients satisfaction. There were no unplanned outpatient visits or readmissions and no complications in the follow-up at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the more expensive chloroprocaine 3% for ambulatory foot surgery can reduce total perioperative costs and reduce length of stay in outpatient patients. Moreover, the saved time and personal resources could be used for additional cases, further increasing the revenues of an ambulatory surgical center.

Comparison of tolerance and cost-effectiveness of two nasal anesthesia techniques for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: (1) Compare tolerance of aerosolized spray versus syringe administration of topical anesthesia for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy (TFL), (2) analyze cost-effectiveness of both techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, randomized trial. SETTING: Tertiary academic laryngology practice. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients underwent TFL over 3 months. Patients were randomized to receive equivalent dose 1:1 neosynephrine/4% plain lidocaine mixture via aerosolized spray ("spray") or application with 1-cc syringe ("syringe"). Patients and physicians independently rated comfort of TFL on 5-point scale (1 = not at all comfortable to 5 = very comfortable). Data were collected on patient and endoscopist experience with TFL and reasons for poor tolerance of laryngoscopy. Cost analyses of disposable spray tips and syringes were calculated. RESULTS: Both patients and physicians reported very high tolerance of TFL. Patient tolerance appears to be similar between spray- versus syringe-administered anesthesia, although study limitations preclude definitive analysis. Poor tolerance of laryngoscopy was reported in 6.5% with comparable distribution between anesthetic delivery methods. There was no impact of patient prior experience with TFL, and there was no difference between anesthetic methods for TFL performed by resident, fellow, or attending. The difference between costs of the disposable spray tip versus syringe was $1.32 per unit. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a 1-cc syringe is an effective method to provide topical nasal anesthesia for TFL and saves $1.32 per unit compared to disposable spray tips. In our practice, transition to syringe-administered nasal anesthesia is projected to save $1300 per 1000 patients, or an anticipated $1000 per year per physician, with excellent patient tolerance of TFL.

Topical versus peribulbar anesthesia in non-penetrating deep sclerectomy. A cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: To assess the costs and cost-effectiveness ratio of topical and peribulbar anesthesia in non-penetrating deep sclerectomy for the surgical treatment of open-angle glaucoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the associated direct costs with both topical and peribulbar anesthesia. Effectiveness was defined as the proportion of patients that experienced no pain during the surgical procedure and was obtained from the literature. Cost-effectiveness was defined as direct cost of anesthesia per patient with no pain. We also calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in order to determine which intervention was dominant. RESULTS: Direct costs were US$ 45.60 and US$ 49.18 for topical and peribulbar anesthesia respectively. The great majority of patients experienced no pain with any of the procedures (91.7% for the topical group and 69.7% for the peribulbar group). Cost-effectiveness ratio was US$ 49.73 for topical anesthesia and US$ 70.56 for peribulbar anesthesia. The ICER was negative and topical anesthesia was dominant over peribulbar anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Topical anesthesia was less costly and more effective than peribulbar anesthesia in avoiding pain in non-penetrating deep sclerectomy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a new 8% capsaicin patch, compared to the current treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical lidocaine patches, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. METHODS: A 1-year Markov model was constructed for PHN with monthly cycles, including dose titration and management of adverse events. The perspective of the analysis was from a payer perspective, managed-care organization. Clinical trials were used to determine the proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in PHN pain, the efficacy parameter. The outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); second-order probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The effectiveness results indicated that 8% capsaicin patch and topical lidocaine patch were significantly more effective than the oral PHN products. TCAs were least costly and significantly less costly than duloxetine, pregabalin, topical lidocaine patch, 8% capsaicin patch, but not gabapentin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 8% capsaicin patch overlapped with the topical lidocaine patch and was within the accepted threshold of cost per QALY gained compared to TCAs, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregablin. The frequency of the 8% capsaicin patch retreatment assumption significantly impacts its cost-effectiveness results. There are several limitations to this analysis. Since no head-to-head studies were identified, this model used inputs from multiple clinical trials. Also, a last observation carried forward process was assumed to have continued for the duration of the model. Additionally, the trials with duloxetine may have over-predicted its efficacy in PHN. Although a 30% improvement in pain is often an endpoint in clinical trials, some patients may require greater or less improvement in pain to be considered a clinical success. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness results demonstrated that 8% capsaicin and topical lidocaine patches had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents used to treat PHN. In addition, this cost-effectiveness analysis found that the 8% capsaicin patch was similar to topical lidocaine patch and within an accepted cost per QALY gained threshold compared to the oral products.

Transrectal-HIFU as primary minimally-invasive option for localized prostate cancer. Is spinal anaesthesia cost-effective? A single centre experience in over 100 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The management of Prostate cancer (PC), since PSA testing has been introduced in the clinical practice, has been significantly spoiled by a "leading-time bias" effect. As a consequence, this has brought to a dramatic diagnosis anticipation at the 4th-5th decade of life in sexually active and otherwise asymptomatic men. Standard options as radical prostatectomy or EBRT are hampered by a significant negative impact on patient's QoL. More recently several alternative minimally-invasive ablative treatment modalities have been proposed with promising results. Among these, TR-HIFU (Trans-Rectal High Intensity Focused Ultrasound) is playing a growing role in the treatment of localized low-intermediate risk PC, although long-term oncologic outcome are still awaited. In order to achieve an optimal result, a specific TR-HIFU's requirement is given by an unchanging target throughout the whole procedure. Therefore, the ideal anaesthesia should be either minimally-invasive and allow to get a motionless target up to 3-4 hours. A retrospective evaluation of efficacy and safety of a spinal anaesthesia in this patient's setting was done. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 107 patients with localized prostate cancer treated in our institution from October 2004 to December 2007 with TR-HIFU procedure received a subarachnoidal anaesthesia with combined administration of 0.5% normobaric racemic bupivacaine (15 to 17.5 mg) and sufentanil 5 microg. RESULTS: This technique allowed covering the whole TR-HIFU procedure (analgesia and motor blockade up to 4-5 hours). It was well tolerated by patients who only rarely required additional sedative or analgesics. A low anaesthesia-related side effects rate, as arterial hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and no severe side effects of intrathecal opioids, as deep sedation, bradycardia, myosis, bradypnea and oxygen desaturation, occurred. Intraoperative employment of sedatives and postoperative need of analgesics was low. CONCLUSIONS: Using a low-dose intrathecal sufentanil an effective spinal block either on the sensitive and motor pathways was provided. Patients' tolerance to the procedure was good and the side-effect rate low. No adverse reactions to intrathecal sufentanil 5 microg were observed. In our experience TR-HIFU can be performed with neuraxial block in most of the cases and it's associated to a favorable cost-benefit rate.

Cost-effectiveness of a lidocaine 5% medicated plaster relative to gabapentin for postherpetic neuralgia in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of elderly patients develop postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) after herpes zoster infection (shingles). A lidocaine 5% medicated plaster marketed in the United Kingdom in January 2007 has been shown to be an effective topical treatment for PHN with minimal risk of systemic adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This paper assessed the cost-effectiveness of using a lidocaine plaster in place of gabapentin in English primary care practice to treat those PHN patients who had insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The analysis took the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The costs and benefits of gabapentin and the lidocaine plaster were calculated over a 6-month time horizon using a Markov model. The model structure allowed for differences in costs, utilities, and transition probabilities between the initial 30-day run-in period and maintenance therapy and also accounted for add-in medications and drugs received by patients who discontinued therapy. Most transition probabilities were based on non-head-to-head clinical trials identified through a systematic review. Data on resource utilization, discontinuation rates, and add-in or switch medications were obtained from a Delphi panel; cost data were from official price tariffs. Published utilities were adjusted for age and were supplemented and validated by the Delphi panel. RESULTS: Six months of therapy with the lidocaine plaster cost pound 549 per patient, compared with pound 718 for gabapentin, and generated 0.05 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The lidocaine plaster therefore dominated gabapentin (95% CI, dominant- pound 2163/QALY gained). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 90.15% chance that the lidocaine plaster was both less costly and more effective than gabapentin and a 99.99% chance that it cost < pound 20,000/QALY relative to gabapentin. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the conclusions. CONCLUSION: This study found that the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was a cost-effective alternative to gabapentin for PHN patients who were intolerant to TCAs and in whom analgesics were ineffective, from the perspective of the NHS.

Survey of parental willingness to pay and willingness to stay for "painless" intravenous catheter placement.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined how much parents are willing to pay and/or willing to stay to make their child's intravenous (IV) catheter placement painless. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted using a questionnaire administered to a consecutive sample of parents presenting to an emergency department (ED). Eligible subjects were parents accompanying a child 8 years of age or younger. A hypothetical visit to the ED, requiring an IV for their child, was described. Parents were asked if they would prefer to make the IV catheter placement painless and if so, how much of an increase in out-of-pocket cost (none, 15 dollars, and 100 dollars) and/or length of stay they would be willing to incur (no time, 15 minutes, 1 hour). Statistics were chiefly descriptive. Associations of demographic elements with willingness to pay and willingness to stay were analyzed using chi and t tests, where appropriate. RESULTS: One hundred eight subjects were available for analysis. Most parents were mothers (71%), white (53%), and with previous IVs (70%). Most children were boys (55%) with no previous IV placements (55%). The choice of a painless IV placement was independent of demographics and IV experience. Most parents (89%) chose a painless IV placement. Of these parents, 65% chose a willingness to stay of 1 extra hour, and 77% a willingness to pay at least 15 dollars; 37% of parents would pay 100 dollars. Willingness to pay was dependent on both income (P = 0.014) and ethnicity (P = 0.0013). Willingness to stay was independent of both income (P = 0.24) and ethnicity (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Parents are willing to spend both time and money to make their child's IV placement painless. This information should be considered when choosing therapies to reduce the pain of IV placement.

Botulinum toxin A versus bupivacaine trigger point injections for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome: a randomised double blind crossover study.

The treatment of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is diverse and includes trigger point injections of various substances including local anesthetics, steroids and Botulinum toxin A (BTX A). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of trigger point injections using BTX A versus bupivacaine, both in combination with a home-based rehabilitation program. To be enrolled, subjects first had to demonstrate responsiveness to bupivacaine trigger point injection. In this single center, double blind, randomized, cross-over trial, 18 patients with MPS received trigger point injections of either 25 units Botulinum toxin A or 0.5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine per trigger point. A maximum of eight trigger points were injected per subject. Subjects were followed until their pain returned to 75% or more of their pre-injection pain for two consecutive weeks, after which there was a 2 week wash-out period. The subjects then crossed over and had the same trigger points injected with the other agent. All subjects participated in a home exercise program involving static stretches of the affected muscles. Both treatments were effective in reducing pain when compared to baseline (P=0.0067). There was, however, no significant difference between the BTX A and 0.5% bupivacaine groups in duration or magnitude of pain relief, function, satisfaction or cost of care (cost of injectate excluded). Considering the high cost of BTX A, bupivacaine is deemed a more cost-effective injectate for MPS.

Quantification of patient fears regarding dental injections and patient perceptions of a local noninjectable anesthetic gel.

Data have shown that 30% of all Americans do not seek dental care and/or treatment unless a problem arises that causes them severe pain. Similar study results have been found in Europe as well. While some studies indicate that cost concerns prevent people from seeking dental care, the fear of pain has been identified as a factor in keeping people from seeing a dentist. A random sample of US and European patients who had recently undergone a scaling and root planing procedure was surveyed via telephone interview to quantify data on patient concerns and fears regarding anesthesia administered by injection, as well as to determine patient interest and price perception of an anesthetic gel product. The survey also provided data on the patient's experience and perception about the scaling and root planing procedure. Responses from the study population showed that patients find the injection painful and do not like the prolonged numbness. Additionally, based on the patients surveyed, they experience injection anxiety before appointments, and a significant number of them cancel appointments or simply do not seek treatment because they are afraid of the injection. Finally, the study also demonstrated that, while not eliminating dental anxiety completely, the availability of a new noninjectable anesthetic would assist in relieving patient fear, with almost half of the patients surveyed being more likely to seek treatment if only the new noninjectable anesthetic was used. Additionally, most patients surveyed would be willing to pay for the noninjectable anesthetic out of their own pockets if it was not covered by their health insurance.

Patient evaluation of a novel non-injectable anesthetic gel: a multicenter crossover study comparing the gel to infiltration anesthesia during scaling and root planing.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal scaling procedures commonly require some kind of anesthesia. From the patient's perspective, the choice of anesthetic method is a trade-off between the degree of anesthesia and accepting the side effects. The present study evaluates the preferences for a novel non-injection anesthetic product (a gel, containing lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g and thermosetting agents) versus injection anesthesia (lidocaine 2% adrenaline) in conjunction with scaling and/or root planing (SRP). METHODS: In a multicenter, crossover, randomized, open study patients were asked, after they had experienced both products, if they preferred anesthetic gel or injection anesthesia. In addition, the adequacy of anesthesia and occurrence of post-procedure problems were assessed. The patients were also asked about their willingness to return if they were offered anesthetic gel at their next visit and their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for this option. RESULTS: One-hundred seventy (170) patients at eight centers in Belgium were included in the study. There were 157 per protocol (PP) patients. A vast majority of the PP patients (70%) preferred the anesthetic gel to injection anesthesia (22%). The most common reason was less post-procedure numbness. Eighty percent (80%) of the patients expressed satisfactory anesthesia with the gel and 96% with injection anesthesia (P <0.001). Post-procedure problems were significantly less with the gel than with injection (P <0.001): numbness 15% versus 66%, unpleasant sensations such as soreness and pain 44% versus 63%, and problems connected with daily activities 19% versus 69%. The majority of patients (60%) who preferred gel were also willing to pay for it. A conservative estimate of the median WTP was $10.00. Furthermore, anesthetic gel would make almost every second patient (45%) more or much more willing to return for the next treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that a somewhat less profound anesthesia with gel is clearly preferred by the patients because of the low incidence of post-procedure problems as compared to conventional injection anesthesia. The median WTP is likely in excess of the acquisition cost of the product, which indicates a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the individual patient.

Putting your money where your mouth is: willingness to pay for dental gel.

OBJECTIVES: To measure preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for a novel anaesthetic (dental gel) versus existing anaesthetic options for periodontal maintenance visits. DESIGN: The study was conducted by developing and administering a survey, composed of a modified decision aid and a WTP instrument. The decision aid provided clinical information in layman's terms. Patients stated their anaesthetic preference; WTP elicited the hypothetical amount of money a subject would pay to have dental gel available for maintenance cleaning, should they require anaesthetic. PATIENTS: Periodontal recall patients (n = 97; 'recall') and participants from the general population (n = 196; 'general') from southwestern Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The overwhelming majority of participants chose dental gel over injectable local anaesthetic or no anaesthetic as their first anaesthetic preference (general: 81.0%; recall: 82.5%). The median WTP for dental gel was 20.00 Canadian dollars (dollars Can) per visit for the general population and dollars Can10.00 for the recall population (1999 values). The majority of participants were willing to pay an insurance premium for dental gel, even if they did not personally prefer dental gel (general: 72.4%; recall: 73.2%). The median monthly premium to have dental gel available for any plan beneficiary requiring scaling and root planing (SRP) during maintenance was dollars Can2.00 per month for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, an alternative to traditional injectable local anaesthetic (i.e. dental gel) was overwhelmingly preferred by both general population participants and recall patients for maintenance cleaning procedures. Most participants were willing to pay to have dental gel available, either for themselves or for others.

Ropivacaine.

Ropivacaine (Naropin, AstraZeneca) is a long-acting amide local anaesthetic released for clinical use in 1996. Similar to bupivacaine, ropivacaine is equally effective for s.c. infiltration, epidural and peripheral nerve block for surgery, obstetric and post-operative analgesia. Ropivacaine differs from most other amide-type local anaesthetics in that it is marketed as a pure S-enantiomer, instead of as a racemate. This feature improves the safety of ropivacaine, and, indeed, studies have shown ropivacaine to have less cardiovascular and CNS toxicity than bupivacaine. Ropivacaine is nearly identical to bupivacaine in onset, quality and duration of sensory block, but it produces less motor block. Whether or not the motor sparing effect of ropivacaine is due to a lower relative potency compared to bupivacaine is a matter of intense debate. Despite a better safety profile, the increased cost of ropivacaine may limit its clinical utility.