50% efficacy dose of intravenous lidocaine in supressing sufentanil-induced cough in children: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioids such as sufentanil are used as anaesthetics due to their rapid action and superior analgesic effect. However, sufentanil induces a huge cough in paediatric patients. In contrast, intravenous (IV) lidocaine suppresses opioid-induced cough in children, but its use is limited due to anaesthetists' concern about its toxicity. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of dose-dependent IV lidocaine on sufentanil-induced cough (SIC) in paediatric patients. METHODS: A total of 188 patients aged 3-12 years scheduled for elective tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy were enrolled and divided into four groups depending on different dose of lidocaine: A (0 mg.kg-1), B (1 mg.kg-1), C (1.5 mg.kg-1), and D (2 mg.kg-1). The primary outcome was the SIC grade observed during the induction of general anaesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of SIC, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate at T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. RESULTS: The SIC grade was significantly different between groups A and D (P = 0.04) and between groups B and D (P = 0.03). Moreover, the incidence of SIC in groups A, B, C, and D was 81%, 87%, 68%, and 64%, respectively, and the difference between groups B and C (P = 0.03) and between groups B and D (P = 0.0083) was statistically significant. No statistical differences were observed in the hemodynamic parameters between the groups. The incidence of severe cough was statistically different between group D and group A (P < 0.0001), between group D and group B (P < 0.0001), and between group D and group C (P < 0.0001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine suppresses SIC in a dose-dependent manner without severe adverse events. IV lidocaine can be used in paediatric patients safely and efficiently, and the median effective dose was 1.75 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yichang Central People's Hospital (HEC-KYJJ-2020-038-02), The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100053006).

Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity in Cardiac Surgery Patient with Erector Spinae Plane Catheter: A Case Report.

Regional anesthesia nerve blocks are increasingly used for patients undergoing cardiac surgery as part of multimodal pain management. Though rare, local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a severe complication that requires vigilant monitoring. We present a case of a postcardiac surgery patient who developed LAST multiple days after surgery from lidocaine via an erector spinae plane catheter. This episode was determined to be a result of impaired lidocaine metabolism from liver shock caused by worsening pulmonary hypertension. Even under continuous monitoring, patients with cardiac or liver dysfunction are at increased risk of complications from local anesthetics.

Local anesthetics allergy in children: Evaluation of diagnostic tests with Real-Life data.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetic (LA) drugs are commonly used in clinical practice to provide effective analgesia, including in dentistry and minor surgical procedures. The perception of a high risk of allergy in daily applications leads to the referral of atopic patients and those with other drug allergies to allergy clinics for the evaluation of allergic reactions to LA. The aim of this study was to determine who should be referred to the allergy clinic for LA allergy testing, assess the frequency of LA allergy in pediatric patients, and identify the negative predictive value of skin tests in diagnosis. METHODS: January 2017-July 2023, the clinical and laboratory data, as well as the results of drug allergy tests, of patients referred to our pediatric allergy clinic by dentists and physicians performing minor surgical procedures with suspected LA allergy were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Our study included a total of 153 patients, comprising 84 girls (54.9%) and 69 boys (45.1%), with a mean age of 8.9 (±3.3) years. The most common reason for referral was a history of non-LA drug allergies (n = 66, 43.2%), followed by asthma (n = 25, 16.3%). Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) with LA were most commonly associated with articaine (n = 7, 4.8%), followed by lidocaine (n = 6, 4.1%). When intradermal tests were evaluated, 17 patients (11.1%) had a positive test result. The positivity for lidocaine was 70.6% (n = 12), and prilocaine was 29.4% (n = 5). Subcutaneous provocation was administered to 109 patients (71.2%), and one patient exhibited local erythema and swelling with prilocaine. CONCLUSION: Although LA allergy is a rare occurrence, consultations of this nature are frequently requested from allergy clinics in real life. Considering the negative predictive value of skin tests performed with LA drugs, the reaction rate appears to be low in patients with atopy or other drug allergies. It is crucial for all relevant healthcare professionals to be knowledgeable about the appropriate approach to suspected LA allergies to avoid unnecessary tests. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the most comprehensive work in the literature that evaluates the results of diagnostic tests in children referred with a suspicion of LA allergy.

Comparison of the effects of esketamine, sufentanil, or lidocaine combined with propofol on tussis reflection during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a randomised, two centre, three-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tussis, which increases the incidence of airway spasm, aspiration, nausea, and vomiting, is a common complication faced during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. However, sedatives and analgesics exhibit inhibitory actions against airway reflexes to different degrees. Our assumption is a combination of propofol and small doses of sufentanil, esketamine, or lidocaine, especially the combination of propofol and esketamine, might reduce tussis incidence. METHOD: The study will be performed as a randomised controlled three-blind, two-centre trial. Patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-III will be randomised to four groups: P group (single administration of propofol), P + S group (administration of propofol and sufentanil in combination), P + K group (administration of propofol and esketamine in combination), and P + L group (administration of propofol and lidocaine in combination) (N = 100 per group). The primary endpoints include the frequency of tussis, nausea and vomiting, and/or body movements observed at the insertion of the endoscope into the pharyngeal cavity or within 5 min of endoscope insertion. Secondary outcomes are recovery assessment, patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction with the procedure, MMSE scores, MET scores, sleep condition, and the number of sedation-related events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of vital signs. Satisfaction parameters and mental states are collected by means of questionnaires and evaluation scales before and after the procedure and on different following days. DISCUSSION: Esketamine can reduce tussis occurrence with good tolerability and relax the bronchus and also provides high clearance rates and low possibility of adverse reactions. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to upper GI procedure is nevertheless superior to only administration of propofol or a combination of propofol with other anaesthetics, such as opioids or lidocaine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05497492 , Registered 09 August 2022.

Postoperative use and early discontinuation of intravenous lidocaine in spine patients.

PURPOSE: Our institution employs a multimodal approach to manage postoperative pain after spine surgery. It involves continuous intravenous (IV) lidocaine until the morning of postoperative day two. This study aimed to determine the rate and reasons for early discontinuation of IV lidocaine in our spine patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review and included pediatric patients who underwent ≥ 3-level spine surgery and received postoperative IV lidocaine from November 2019 to September 2022. For each case, we recorded the side effects of IV lidocaine, adverse events, time to discontinuation, and discontinuation rate. Subsequently, we used the same methodology to generate an adult cohort for comparison. RESULTS: We included 52 pediatric (18M:34F) and 50 (21M:29F) adult patients. The pediatric cohort's mean age was 14 years (8-18), and BMI 23.9 kg/m2 (13.0-42.8). The adult cohort's mean age was 61 years (29-82), and BMI 28.8 kg/m2 (17.2-44.1). IV lidocaine was discontinued prematurely in 21/52 (40.4%) of the pediatric cases and 26/50 (52.0%) of the adult cases (RR = 0.78, p = 0.2428). The side effects noted in the pediatric cases vary, including numbness, visual disturbance, and obtundation, but no seizures. The most common adverse events were fever and motor dysfunction. CONCLUSION: The early discontinuation rate of IV lidocaine use after spine surgery for children in our institution does not differ significantly from that of adults. The nature of the side effects and the reasons for discontinuation between the groups were similar. Thus, the safety profile of IV lidocaine for pediatric spine patients is comparable to adults.

Long-term Performance and Safety of Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine for Midface Augmentation: The PRIMAvera Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers are the most applied medical devices for midface augmentation. OBJECTIVES: This postmarket investigation evaluated the long-term performance and safety of and patient satisfaction with Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine (PVPL; now Saypha VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine) for the correction of midface volume deficit (MVD). METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, interventional, multicenter, noncomparative, postapproval study of 91 patients with moderate or severe MVD (grade 2 or 3 on the 5-point Midface Volume Deficit Severity Scale, or MVDSS). At Day 0 (Visit 1), patients were treated with PVPL; they returned for follow-up assessments at weeks 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 52 and had long-term follow-up until 36 months. A touch-up treatment could be done at week 2. The performance was assessed with the MVDSS, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and a subject satisfaction scale. Adverse events were collected to assess safety throughout the study. RESULTS: Four weeks after treatment, 100% of injected patients improved by ≥1 grade on the MVDSS compared to baseline, with improvements still visible in 77% of patients 52 weeks after treatment. Based on the GAIS and post hoc survival analysis, the treatment effect was maintained for a median of 386 days, and in severe cases the effect lasted longer, which seemed to be independent of the volume injected at baseline. No serious side effects were reported. Results were substantiated by high patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine was perceived as safe and effective by patients and investigators, with long-term aesthetic improvement in moderate and severe cases.

Pharmacological interventions for reducing the incidence of myoclonus in patients receiving etomidate for induction of general anesthesia: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this umbrella review was to examine various pharmacologic interventions for their potential to reduce etomidate-induced myoclonus. A secondary objective was to compare the relative effectiveness of those medications in reducing the incidence of myoclonus when etomidate is utilized for the induction of general anesthesia. INTRODUCTION: Etomidate is the drug of choice when inducing general anesthesia in hemodynamically unstable patients. However, its use is limited among the general surgical population due to its ability to cause adrenal suppression, vomiting, and myoclonus. Myoclonus can lead to damage of muscle fibers, myalgias, and patient discomfort, and can also be detrimental in patients with low cardiac reserve. Several systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of various intravenous medications in reducing mild, moderate, and severe myoclonus; however, a more thorough examination of their influence was lacking. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials involving the use of pharmacologic interventions to reduce etomidate-induced myoclonus. Reviews in English and conducted after 1965 were considered for inclusion. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 11 databases was conducted to identify published and unpublished reviews up to March 2022. Critical appraisal was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using the standardized JBI appraisal tool. Quantitative findings were summarized according to the dose, timing of administration, and relative risk using a data matrix, and were synthesized in tabular format with supporting narrative text. Results were organized by severity of myoclonus (overall, mild, moderate, and severe) and by type of intervention. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review, which included 48 relevant studies, after removal of duplicates (3909 participants included in the primary studies). Five of the systematic reviews examined the effectiveness of various types of opioids in the prevention of myoclonus, and 3 systematic reviews examined the effectiveness of non-opioid interventions, such as lidocaine, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine. Seven reviews searched at least 4 databases for pertinent studies and specifically indicated that blinded reviewers appraised the articles. All reviews used a published and validated appraisal instrument. The overall quality of all included reviews was judged to be moderate to high. The absolute risk reduction indicating the effectiveness of the prophylactic medications ranged from 47% to 81% for mild, 52% to 92% for moderate, and 61% to 96% for severe myoclonus. Opioids demonstrated the most consistent and substantial effect on the reduction in myoclonus. CONCLUSIONS: All pharmacologic interventions identified in this review demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of myoclonus. Future studies and reviews should focus on elucidating the particular dose range and timing that is most effective. Anesthesia providers should consider a pre-treatment dose of one of the medications described in this umbrella review as a means to reduce myoclonus and the untoward effects of that condition.

Effect and safety profile of topical lidocaine on post-surgical neuropathic pain and quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Post-surgical chronic pain with a neuropathic component is usually more severe and leads to worse quality of life. We conducted this systematic review to examine the evidence of topical lidocaine for post-surgical neuropathic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. SETTING: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical lidocaine with placebo or no topical lidocaine for post-surgical neuropathic pain. PATIENTS: Seven RCTs including 585 patients. INTERVENTIONS: We systematically searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect and safety outcomes of topical lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention. MEASUREMENTS: We conducted meta-analyses to evaluate the effect of topical lidocaine on pain intensity, adverse events, and quality of life. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs were effect measures for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We assessed the risk of bias of included trials and the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included 7 studies with 585 participants. There is moderate certainty evidence that topical lidocaine may increase the likelihood of global pain relief, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 3.76; I2 = 70%, P = 0.04). Low certainty evidence suggested topical lidocaine may lead to more reduction in pain intensity (SMD: -0.70; 95% confidence interval: -1.46, 0.06; I2 = 93%, P = 0.07). High certainty evidence showed that topical lidocaine did not increase the adverse event risk (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.16; I2 = 0%, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Topical lidocaine may lead to pain relief and is safe to use for patient with post-surgical pain, though its impact on quality of life is unclear. This review supports the use of topical lidocaine for patients with post-surgical pain, and reveals the evidence gap in topical lidocaine use. (Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021294100).

Adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in pediatric dentistry: a meta-analysis.

Over the last few years, numerous reports have lauded the efficacy of articaine hydrochloride as a local anesthetic (LA) in dental procedures. Numerous studies have shown that articaine outperforms lidocaine in various aspects of dental treatment, leading to its widespread adoption in both adults and children. Despite the publications of comparative studies, there remains a dearth of systematic reviews examining the adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in randomized controlled trials. The aim was to assess the available research on the adverse effects of articaine and lidocaine in pediatric dentistry. A comprehensive search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared articaine with lidocaine in pediatric dentistry were included. Methodological quality assessment and risk of bias were determined for each of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the strength of evidence for every research. A total of 333 studies were identified through electronic searches. After conducting primary and secondary assessments, eight studies were included for the final qualitative analysis. We found no difference in the probability of adverse reactions between articaine and lidocaine after treatment in pediatric patients (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.54-2.15), p = 0.83). However, a high heterogeneity was reported among the outcomes in the investigated studies (I2 = 57%), and the strength of the evidence was classified as "moderate" based on the GRADE approach. Besides, we found no significant difference in the probability of postoperative pain, postoperative soft tissue injury and edema between articaine and lidocaine in pediatric patients following treatment. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine when used for pediatric dental procedures.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dezocine combined with lidocaine in local anesthesia for percutaneous testicular sperm aspiration.

A total of 130 patients who underwent percutaneous testicular sperm aspiration from March 2021 to February 2023 were randomly divided into a Dezocine group and a control group. The Dezocine group received a muscle injection of 0.05mg/kg Dezocine 30 minutes before surgery, while the control group received a muscle injection of 0.01ml/kg normal saline. Both groups received 3ml of 2% lidocaine for spermatic cord block anesthesia. The anesthesia onset time, anesthesia duration, numeric rating scale (NRS) score, anesthesia satisfaction rate and incidence of adverse reactions were recorded and compared between the two groups. The statistical results showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of anesthesia onset time, anesthesia duration, anesthesia satisfaction rate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use within 24 hours after surgery and NRS scores at 15 minutes, 1 hour and 2 hours after surgery. The incidence of adverse reactions in the Dezocine group was lower than that in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The combination of Dezocine and lidocaine for spermatic cord block anesthesia during percutaneous testicular sperm aspiration is safe, effective and associated with fewer adverse reactions. It is suitable for clinical application and promotion in reproductive medicine outpatient surgery.

Lidocaine as an anti-arrhythmic drug: Are there any indications left?

Lidocaine is classified as a class Ib anti-arrhythmic that blocks voltage- and pH-dependent sodium channels. It exhibits well investigated anti-arrhythmic effects and has been the anti-arrhythmic of choice for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias for several decades. Lidocaine binds primarily to inactivated sodium channels, decreases the action potential duration, and increases the refractory period. It increases the ventricular fibrillatory threshold and can interrupt life-threatening tachycardias caused by re-entrant mechanisms, especially in ischemic tissue. Its use was pushed into the background in the era of amiodarone and modern electric device therapy. Recently, lidocaine has come back into focus for the treatment of acute sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In this brief overview, we review the clinical pharmacology including possible side effects, the historical course, possible indications, and current Guideline recommendations for the use of lidocaine.

Topical ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% significantly reduce corneal sensitivity without short-term negative side effects in horses.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate corneal sensitivity and acute side effects following application of ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% and lidocaine hydrochloride 2% on the healthy equine cornea. ANIMALS STUDIED: Eight healthy adult horses. PROCEDURE: A randomized, masked, crossover study design was utilized. Baseline Semiquantitative Preclinical Ocular Toxicology (SPOT) scores and corneal touch thresholds (CTT) using a Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer were recorded and measured, respectively, for eight healthy adult horses before medication application. Commercially available eyewash was used as a negative control. Ropivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% or lidocaine hydrochloride 2% solution was sprayed on a randomly selected eye, and the contralateral eye received eyewash. CTT was measured in both eyes at 1, 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 min post-application. Post-application SPOT scores were recorded immediately following the trial. Linear mixed model statistical analyses (mean ± standard error) were performed (p < .05). RESULTS: Mean eyewash CTT (3.41 cm ± 0.464) was significantly different from ropivacaine-treated (1.44 cm ± 0.562) (p = .008) and lidocaine-treated eyes (1.75 cm ± 0.562) (p = .024); CTT was not significantly different between drug groups (p = .88). Time to maximum anesthesia was not significantly different between ropivacaine (13.25 min ± 3.353) and lidocaine (16.25 min ± 3.353) (p = .40). No side effects were appreciated as confirmed by SPOT. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine and lidocaine similarly decreased corneal sensitivity when applied topically without clinically evident short-term ocular side effects. Lidocaine may be preferable in clinical settings due to its large, multi-use vials and similar effects to ropivacaine.

Intestinal topical lidocaine spray improves the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic polypectomy can prevent colorectal cancer. Adequate surgical field visualization is crucial to complete resection. To prevent visual field loss caused by intestinal peristalsis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of topical lidocaine spraying during the endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy (ESP). METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on 100 ESP patients admitted from July 2021 to October 2021, among which 50 patients received lidocaine (case group) and other 50 patients received normal saline (control group). Lidocaine or saline was sprayed on the colonic mucosa within 5 cm above and below the polyps before polypectomy. The en-bloc resection rate (EBRR) and complete resection rate (CRR) were primarily evaluated. Secondary outcomes included EBRR for polyps located in the 5-11 o'clock position, sigmoid colon peristalsis frequency, degree of exposure to the surgical field, operative times, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the basic demographic characteristics between the two groups. EBRR and CRR in the case group were 72.9% and 95.8%, and in the control group were 53.3% and 91.1%, respectively. The EBRR of sigmoid polyps located at the 5-11 o'clock positions was significantly higher in the case group (82.8%) than in the control group (56.7%) (P = 0.03). Sigmoid colonic peristalsis was significantly inhibited after lidocaine spraying (P < 0.01). There was no statistical difference in the operative times and adverse event rates between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Topical spraying lidocaine around polyps can safely and effectively reduce intestinal peristalsis, thus improving the EBRR of sigmoid polypectomy.

Intravenous lidocaine improves postoperative cognition in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction(POCD) in laparoscopic surgery should not be overlooked. Intravenous lidocaine can reduce perioperative inflammatory response in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, while the effect of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery has not been well studied. We investigated whether intraoperative lidocaine improves postoperative cognitive function after laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized double blinded controlled trial to investigate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on rapid postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous lidocaine or saline. The primary outcome was cognitive dysfunction defined by a decrease from pre- to postoperative ≥ 2 of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, at the 3rd and the 7th postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were the MMSE raw score and parameters of the patients' postoperative recovery such as agitation and length of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), length of hospital stay, markers of inflammation (white blood cell count and CRP), and incidence of complications. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients in the lidocaine group and 77 patients in the control group completed the trial. The rate of cognitive dysfunction was lower in the lidocaine group than that in the control group, both at the 3rd (18.57% vs. 63.64% for each group respectively; RR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.19-0.32; p < 0.0001) and at the 7th postoperative day (12.33% vs. 53.25% for each group respectively; RR = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.22-0.35; P < 0.001). The postoperative MMSE scores were also higher in the lidocaine group than in the control group both at the 3rd (median 25 vs. 24 respectively) and at the 7th postoperative day (26 vs. 24 respectively). Also, patients in the lidocaine group displayed a lower white blood cell count than the control group at the 1st postoperative day (8.5 ± 2.7 vs. 10.4 ± 3.3; p < 0. 001). No differences were evidenced for the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative intravenous lidocaine can significantly improve postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (16/1/2022, registration number: ChiCTR2200055683).

The Value of Injection Therapy with Botulinum Toxin in Pain Treatment of Primary Chronic Anal Fissures Compared to Anal Dilation, and Local Nifedipine in Combination with Lidocaine.

Introduction: Anal fissure is a longitudinal tear of the mucosa of the anal canal extending from the outer anal orifice in the direction of the dentate line of the inner anal opening. Fissures are divided into primary and secondary, and acute or chronic. Besides minimal rectal bleeding, itching and soiling, primary chronic anal fissures (PCAF) manifest with anal pain as theirs main determinant. It is described as the most troubling symptom. Aim: To compare the effect of injection therapy with botulinum toxin A (ITBT) vs. anal dilation (AD), and local nifedipine with lidocaine (LNL) in pain treatment of PCAF. Materials and Methods: This controlled retrospective prospective longitudinal study covered 94 patients, divided in 3 groups. The first was treated with ITBT, the second with AD and third using LNL (31, 33 and 30 patients respectively). Clostridium botulinum toxin A was used, dissolved with saline to concentration of 200 U/ml. The solution was applied to both sides of PCAF at dose of 40U. Modified technique of AD was done using 3 fingers of a single hand, progressively introduced into the anal canal, followed by gradual lateral distraction during 1 min. LNL therapy was conducted using nifedipine (0.3%) with lidocaine (1.5%) ointment, applied twice daily for 3 weeks. To measure pain, a visual analog scale (VAS) was used. The follow-up period was 12 weeks with checkup at week 4. Results: The median age of participants was 46.6±13.9 years (50 males vs. 44 females). The type of therapy had a significantly different effect on pain at week 4 (p=0.0003). Severe pain was present in only 2 ITBT patients, 16 AD, and 6 LNL patients. Post hoc analyses showed different pain disappearance time by week 12 (p <0.0001). The mean time was shortest in ITBT group (6.1±1.5 weeks). Anal pain intensity significantly differed among the 3 groups (Fisher exact, p=0.002). Namely, 71% in ITBT group rated the pain as weakest (VAS score 1) compared to 18.2% in AD and 30% of patients in LNL group. The overall pain reduction significance was in favor of ITBT, due to the differences between the ITBT and AD groups (p=0.00024) and ITBT compared to LNL group (p=0.018). Conclusion: ITBT is superior to AD and LNL in reducing pain in PCAF.