A Four-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial of Topical Pain Control for Sentinel Node Radiotracer Injections in Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radioactive tracer injections for breast cancer sentinel lymph node mapping can be painful. In this randomized trial, we compared four approaches to topical pain control for radiotracer injections. METHODS: Breast cancer patients were randomized (9 April 2021-8 May 2022) to receive the institutional standard of ice prior to injection (n = 44), or one of three treatments: ice plus a vibrating distraction device (Buzzy®; n = 39), 4% lidocaine patch (n = 44), or 4% lidocaine patch plus ice plus Buzzy® (n = 40). Patients completed the Wong-Baker FACES® pain score (primary outcome) and a satisfaction with pain control received scale (secondary). Nuclear medicine technologists (n = 8) rated perceived pain control and ease of administration for each patient. At study conclusion, technologists rank-ordered treatments. Data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare pain scores of control versus pooled treatment arms (primary) and then control to each treatment arm individually (secondary). RESULTS: There were no differences in pain scores between the control and treatment groups, both pooled and individually. Eighty-five percent of patients were 'satisfied/very satisfied' with treatment received, with no differences between groups. No differences in providers' perceptions of pain were observed, although providers perceived treatments involving Buzzy© more difficult to administer (p < 0.001). Providers rated lidocaine patch as the easiest, with ice being second. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial, no differences in patient-reported pain or satisfaction with treatment was observed between ice and other topical treatments. Providers found treatments using Buzzy® more difficult to administer. Given patient satisfaction and ease of administration, ice is a reasonable standard.

Eutectic mixture of local anesthetics and amethocaine as topical anesthetics in pediatrics: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients often receive topical anesthesia before skin procedures in the Emergency Department, with EMLA cream and amethocaine gel being common choices. The most effective option remains a subject of debate. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare EMLA cream with amethocaine gel in pediatric patients undergoing topical anesthesia, focusing on outcomes: first-attempt cannulation success, child-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) score, parent-reported VAS score, observed pain score, child-reported absence of pain, and child-reported acceptable anesthesia. METHODS: A database search for studies comparing EMLA cream and amethocaine gel in pediatric topical anesthesia was conducted. Two reviewers extracted and cross-verified data, with a third ensuring accuracy. Using R software, a pairwise meta-analysis was performed via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios or standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Amethocaine gel surpasses EMLA cream in child-reported pain absence and first cannulation success. No significant differences were found in child-reported acceptable anesthesia or observed pain scores. Similarly, child- and parent-reported VAS scores showed no variations between EMLA and amethocaine. CONCLUSION: This analysis favors amethocaine gel for pediatric topical anesthesia. Further large randomized trials comparing EMLA cream and amethocaine gel in pediatric patients are warranted. IMPACT: Procedural pain is a major concern for pediatric patients, their families, and physicians. Topical anesthesia is routinely given prior to children undergoing skin-related procedures in the Emergency Department. In pediatric patients, topical anesthetics such as eutectic mixture of local anesthetics cream and amethocaine gel have proved to be pioneering in pain reduction, but the most effective method is often disputed. Presently, this is the most comprehensive pooled analysis of trials comparing EMLA cream and amethocaine gel in pediatric patients undergoing topical anesthesia. Amethocaine performed better with regards to child-reported absence of pain and first attempt cannulation success.

Innovative Use of an Injectable, Self-Healing Drug-Loaded Pectin-Based Hydrogel for Micro- and Supermicro-Vascular Anastomoses.

Microvascular surgery plays a crucial role in reconnecting micrometer-scale vessel ends. Suturing remains the gold standard technique for small vessels; however, suturing the collapsed lumen of microvessels is challenging and time-consuming, with the risk of misplaced sutures leading to failure. Although multiple solutions have been reported, the emphasis has predominantly been on resolving challenges related to arteries rather than veins, and none has proven superior. In this study, we introduce an innovative solution to address these challenges through the development of an injectable lidocaine-loaded pectin hydrogel by using computational and experimental methods. To understand the extent of interactions between the drug and the pectin chain, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and quantum mechanics (QM) calculations were conducted in the first step of the research. Then, a series of experimental studies were designed to prepare lidocaine-loaded injectable pectin-based hydrogels, and their characterization was performed by using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and rheological analysis. After all the results were evaluated, the drug-loaded pectin-based hydrogel exhibiting self-healing properties was selected as a potential candidate for in vivo studies to determine its performance during operation. In this context, the hydrogel was injected into the divided vessel ends and perivascular area, allowing for direct suturing through the gel matrix. While our hydrogel effectively prevented vasospasm and facilitated micro- and supermicro-vascular anastomoses, it was noted that it did not cause significant changes in late-stage imaging and histopathological analysis up to 6 months. We strongly believe that pectin-based hydrogel potentially enhanced microlevel arterial, lymphatic, and particularly venous anastomoses.

Comparative-effectiveness study evaluating outcomes for transforaminal epidural steroid injections performed with 3% hypertonic saline or normal saline in lumbosacral radicular pain.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) are commonly employed to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy. Despite anti-inflammatory properties, the addition of 3% hypertonic saline has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of adding 0.9% NaCl (N-group) vs. 3% NaCl (H-group) in TFESI performed for lumbosacral radiculopathy. METHODS: This retrospective study compared TFESI performed with lidocaine, triamcinolone and 0.9% NaCl vs. lidocaine, triamcinolone and 3% NaCl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 30% reduction in pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS; 0-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients who improved by at least 30% for pain at 1 and 6 months, and who experienced ≥15% from baseline on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at follow-up. RESULTS: The H-group experienced more successful pain outcomes than the N-group at 3 months (59.09% vs. 41.51%; P = .002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = .61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = .31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than the N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = .002). Female, age ≤ 60 years, and duration of pain ≤ 6 months were associated with superior outcomes at the 3-month endpoint. Although those with a herniated disc experienced better outcomes in general with TFESI, the only difference favoring the H-group was for spondylolisthesis patients. CONCLUSIONS: 3% hypertonic saline is a viable alternative to normal saline as an adjunct for TFESI, with randomized studies needed to compare its effectiveness to steroids as a possible alternative. REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR 20231110006.

Treatment of Brachioradial Pruritus: A Tertiary Center Retrospective Analysis.

This retrospective study investigates the efficacy of 2 treatment regimens, pregabalin alone versus pregabalin combined with ketamine, amitriptyline, and lidocaine cream, in reducing itch in patients with brachioradial pruritus at a tertiary care center. Electronic medical records of 64 brachioradial pruritus patients seen at the University of Miami Itch Center were analyzed. A significant reduction in itch scores was seen with both treatments, with no significant difference between the groups. A small number of patients experienced adverse effects, including drowsiness and weight gain with pregabalin and skin irritation with ketamine, amitriptyline, and lidocaine cream. Ultimately, our findings underscore the potential of utilizing combined therapy for difficult-to-treat brachioradial pruritus cases and implementing individualized approaches for managing neuropathic pruritus. Further controlled clinical trials are needed to establish optimal treatment protocols.

Lidocaine spray vs mepivacaine local infiltration for suturing 1st/2nd grade perineal lacerations: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Perineal lacerations are a very common complication of post-partum. Usually, the repair of 1st and 2nd-grade lacerations is performed after the administration of local anesthesia. Despite the great relevance of the problem, there are only a few studies about the best choice of local anesthetic to use during suturing. We performed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of a local anesthetic spray during the suturing of perineal lacerations in the post-partum. METHODS: We compared the spray with the standard technique, which involves the infiltration of lacerated tissues, using the NRS scale. 136 eligible women who had given birth at University Hospital of Udine were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive nebulization of Lidocaine hydrochloride 10% spray (experimental group) or subcutaneous/submucosal infiltration of mepivacaine hydrochloride (control group) during suturing of perineal laceration. RESULTS: The lacerations included 84 1st-grade perineal traumas (61.7%) and 52 2nd-grade perineal traumas (38.2%). All the procedures were successfully completed without severe complications or serious adverse reactions. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood losses or total procedure time. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of NRS to none of the intervals considered. Regarding the application of the spray in the B group, in 36 cases (52.9%) it was necessary to improve the number of puffs previously supposed to be sufficient (5 puffs). Just in 3 cases, an additional injection was necessary (4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that lidocaine spray alone can be used as a first line of local anesthetic during the closure of I-II-grade perineal lacerations, as it has comparable efficacy to mepivacaine infiltration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was recorded on https://clinicaltrials.gov . Identification number: NCT05201313. First registration date: 21/01/2022. Unique Protocol ID: 0042698/P/GEN/ARCS.

Comparison of Fentanyl, Ketamine, and Lidocaine Combined with Propofol Anesthesia in Patients with Crohn Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the predominant invasive procedure for Crohn disease (CD) patients. Opioids and propofol carry risks of respiratory and cardiovascular complications. This study aimed to evaluate whether substituting fentanyl with ketamine or lidocaine could diminish propofol usage and minimize adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total, 146 patients with CD scheduled for elective colonoscopy were assigned to anesthesia with fentanyl (n=47), ketamine (n=47), or lidocaine (n=55). Propofol was administered to achieve sufficient anesthesia. Measured outcomes in each group included propofol consumption, hypotension and desaturation incidents, adverse event types, consciousness recovery time, abdominal pain intensity, Aldrete scale, and Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System (PADSS). RESULTS Patients administered fentanyl needed significantly more propofol (P=0.017) than those on ketamine, with lidocaine showing no notable difference (P=0.28). Desaturation was significantly less common in the ketamine and lidocaine groups than fentanyl group (P<0.001). The ketamine group experienced milder reductions in mean arterial (P=0.018) and systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Recovery metrics (Aldrete and PADSS scores) were lower for fentanyl (P<0.001), although satisfaction and pain levels were consistent across all groups (P=0.797). Dizziness occurred less frequently with lidocaine than fentanyl (17.2%, P=0.018) and ketamine (15.1%, P=0.019), while metallic taste incidents were more prevalent in the lidocaine group (13.5%, P=0.04) than fentanyl group. CONCLUSIONS Using ketamine or lidocaine instead of fentanyl in anesthesia for colonoscopy in patients with CD significantly lowers propofol use, reduces desaturation events, maintains blood pressure more effectively, without increasing hypotension risk, and accelerates recovery, without negatively impacting adverse events or patient satisfaction.

A systematic review of procedural modalities in the treatment of notalgia paresthetica.

BACKGROUND: Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a rare condition characterized by localized pain and pruritus of the upper back, associated with a distinct area of hyperpigmentation. Given the lack of standardized treatment and the uncertain efficacy of available options, applying procedural methods is of growing interest in treating NP. AIMS: We sought to comprehensively evaluate the role of procedural treatments for NP. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science until November 14th, 2023. We also performed a citation search to detect all relevant studies. Original clinical studies published in the English language were included. RESULTS: Out of 243 articles, sixteen studies have reported various procedural modalities, with or without pharmacological components, in treating NP. Pharmacological procedures, including injections of botulinum toxin, lidocaine, and corticosteroids, led to a level of improvement in case reports and case series. However, botulinum toxin did not show acceptable results in a clinical trial. Moreover, non-pharmacological procedures were as follows: physical therapy, exercise therapy, kinesiotherapy, acupuncture and dry needling, electrical muscle stimulation, surgical decompression, and phototherapy. These treatments result in significant symptom control in refractory cases. Physical therapy can be considered a first-line choice or an alternative in refractory cases. CONCLUSION: Procedural modalities are critical in the multidisciplinary approach to NP, especially for patients who are refractory to topical and oral treatments. Procedural modalities include a spectrum of options that can be applied based on the disease's symptoms and severity.

Effect of cuff inflation with lidocaine, saline, and air on tracheal tube cuff pressure during laparoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasms: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal tube cuff pressure will increase after pneumoperitoneum when the cuff is inflated with air, high pressure can cause tracheal mucosal damage. This prospective trial aimed to assess if inflating with normal saline or lidocaine can prevent increase of tracheal tube cuff pressure and tracheal mucosal damage in laparoscopic surgeries with general anesthesia. Whether changes of tracheal tube cuff transverse diameter (CD) can predict changes of tracheal tube cuff pressure. METHODS: Ninety patients scheduled for laparoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasms under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to groups air (A), saline (S) or lidocaine (L). Endotracheal tube cuff was inflated with room-temperature air in group A (n = 30), normal saline in group S (n = 30), 2% lidocaine hydrochloride injection in group L (n = 30). After intubation, tracheal tube cuff pressure was monitored by a calibrated pressure transducers, cuff pressure was adjusted to 25 cmH2O (T0.5). Tracheal tube cuff pressure at 15 min after pneumoperitoneum (T1) and 15 min after exsufflation (T2) were accessed. CD were measured by ultrasound at T0.5 and T1, the ability of ΔCD (T1-0.5) to predict cuff pressure was accessed. Tracheal mucous injury at the end of surgery were also recorded. RESULTS: Tracheal tube cuff pressure had no significant difference among the three groups at T1 and T2. ΔCD had prediction value (AUC: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.81-1.02]; sensitivity: 0.99; specificity: 0.82) for cuff pressure. Tracheal mucous injury at the end of surgery were 0 (0, 1.0) in group A, 0 (0, 1.0) in group S, 0 (0, 0) in group L (p = 0.02, group L was lower than group A and S, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to inflation with air, normal saline and 2% lidocaine cannot ameliorate the increase of tracheal tube cuff pressure during the pneumoperitoneum period under general anesthesia, but lidocaine can decrease postoperative tracheal mucosa injury. ΔCD measured by ultrasound is a predictor for changes of tracheal tube cuff pressure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2100054089, Date: 08/12/2021.

Comparing intravenous lidocaine and pethidine for pain management in emergency department patients with femoral bone fracture: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine has shown promise as an effective analgesic in various clinical settings, but its utility for pain management in emergency departments, especially for bone fractures, remains relatively understudied. OBJECTIVE: This study compared intravenous lidocaine to pethidine for femoral bone fracture pain management. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the emergency department of AJA University of Medical Sciences affiliated hospitals. Patients aged 18-70 years-old with femoral bone fracture and experiencing severe pain, defined as a numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain ≥ 7, were included in the study. One group received intravenous pethidine (25 mg), while the other group received intravenous lidocaine (3 mg/kg, not exceeding 200 mg), infused with 250 ml saline over 20 min. Pain levels were evaluated before treatment administration (0 min) and at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after treatment administration using the NRS. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study. Demographic characteristics and pain scores were similar between the two groups. The mean pain scores upon arrival for the lidocaine and pethidine groups were 8.50 ± 1 and 8.0 ± 1, respectively; after one hour, they were 4.0 ± 1 and 4.0 ± 1, respectively. While there was a statistically significant reduction in pain in both groups after one hour, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.262). Pethidine had a higher incidence of adverse events, though not statistically significant. Additionally, females required more rescue analgesics. CONCLUSION: The administration of intravenous lidocaine is beneficial for managing pain in femoral bone fractures, suggesting that lidocaine could be a potent alternative to opioids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT20231213060355N1 ( https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74624 ) (30/12/2023).

Effect of lidocaine on intraoperative blood pressure variability in patients undergoing major vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic fluctuations of arterial blood pressure known as blood pressure variability (BPV) may have short and long-term undesirable consequences. During surgical procedures blood pressure is usually measured in equal intervals allowing to assess its intraoperative variability, which significance for peri and post-operative period is still under debate. Lidocaine has positive cardiovascular effects, which may go beyond its antiarrhythmic activity. The aim of the study was to verify whether the use of intravenous lidocaine may affect intraoperative BPV in patients undergoing major vascular procedures. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the data collected during the previous randomized clinical trial by Gajniak et al. In the original study patients undergoing elective abdominal aorta and/or iliac arteries open surgery were randomized into two groups to receive intravenous infusion of 1% lidocaine or placebo at the same infusion rate based on ideal body weight, in concomitance with general anesthesia. We analyzed systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean arterial blood (MAP) pressure recorded in 5-minute intervals (from the first measurement before induction of general anaesthesia until the last after emergence from anaesthesia). Blood pressure variability was then calculated for SBP and MAP, and expressed as: standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), average real variability (ARV) and coefficient of hemodynamic stability (C10%), and compared between both groups. RESULTS: All calculated indexes were comparable between groups. In the lidocaine and placebo groups systolic blood pressure SD, CV, AVR and C10% were 20.17 vs. 19.28, 16.40 vs. 15.64, 14.74 vs. 14.08 and 0.45 vs. 0.45 respectively. No differences were observed regarding type of surgery, operating and anaesthetic time, administration of vasoactive agents and intravenous fluids, including blood products. CONCLUSION: In high-risk vascular surgery performed under general anesthesia, lidocaine infusion had no effect on arterial blood pressure variability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04691726 post-hoc analysis; date of registration 31/12/2020.

Lidocaine effects on neutrophil extracellular trapping and angiogenesis biomarkers in postoperative breast cancer patients with different anesthesia methods: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia techniques and drug selection may influence tumor recurrence and metastasis. Neutrophil extracellular trapping (NETosis), an immunological process, has been linked to an increased susceptibility to metastasis in individuals with tumors. Furthermore, recurrence may be associated with vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), a mediator of angiogenesis. This study investigates the impact of lidocaine (combined with sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia ) during breast cancer surgery inhibits the expression of biomarkers associated with metastasis and recurrence (specifically H3Cit, NE, MPO, MMP-9 and VEGF-A). METHODS: We randomly assigned 120 women undergoing primary or invasive breast tumor resection to receive one of four anesthetics: sevoflurane (S), sevoflurane plus i.v. lidocaine (SL), propofol (P), and propofol plus i.v. lidocaine (PL). Blood samples were collected before induction and 3 h after the operation. Biomarkers associated with NETosis (citrullinated histone H3 [H3Cit], myeloperoxidase [MPO], and neutrophil elastase [NE]) and angiogenesis were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. RESULTS: Patient and breast tumor characteristics, along with perioperative management, did not differ between study groups. In intra-group comparisons, S and P groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in post-operative MPO (S group: 10.39[6.89-17.22] vs. 14.31[8.55-20.87] ng ml-1, P = 0.032; P group: 9.45[6.73-17.37] vs. 14.34[9.87-19.75] ng ml-1, P = 0.035)and NE(S group: 182.70[85.66-285.85] vs. 226.20[91.85-391.65] ng ml-1, P = 0.045; P group: 154.22[97.31-325.30] vs. 308.66[132.36-483.57] ng ml-1, P = 0.037) concentrations compared to pre-operative measurements, whereas SL and PL groups did not display a similar increase. H3Cit, MMP-9, and VEGF-A concentrations were not significantly influenced by the anesthesia techniques and drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the specific technique employed for general anesthesia, there was no increase in the postoperative serum concentrations of MPO and NE after perioperative lidocaine infusion compared to preoperative serum concentrations. This supports the hypothesis that intravenous lidocaine during cancer surgery aimed at achieving a cure may potentially decrease the likelihood of recurrence. Further interpretation and discussion of clinical implications are warranted, emphasizing the significance of these findings in the context of cancer surgery and recurrence prevention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300068563.

Lidocaine patch as noninvasive alternative treatment option in children with anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome: A retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Chronic abdominal pain in children is occasionally caused by anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome (ACNES). Diagnosing and treating this typical peripheral abdominal wall neuropathy is challenging. Management usually starts with minimally invasive tender point injections. Nevertheless, these injections can be burdensome and might even be refused by children or their parents. However, a surgical neurectomy is far more invasive. Treatment with a Lidocaine 5% medicated patch is successfully used in a variety of peripheral neuropathies. AIMS: This single center retrospective case series aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine patches in children with ACNES. METHODS: Children aged under 18 diagnosed with ACNES who were treated with a 10 day lidocaine patch treatment between December 2021 and December 2022 were studied. Patient record files were used to collect treatment outcomes including pain reduction based on NRS and complications. RESULTS: Twelve of sixteen children (mean age 13 years; F:M ratio 3:1) diagnosed with ACNES started the lidocaine patch treatment. Two patients achieved a pain free status and remained pain free during a 4 and 7 months follow-up. A third child reported a lasting pain reduction, but discontinued treatment due to a temporary local skin rash. Five additional patients reported pain reduction only during application of the patch. The remaining four children experienced no pain relief. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine patches provides pain relief in a substantial portion of children with ACNES.

Avoiding pain during propofol injection in pediatric anesthesia: Hypnoanalgesia of the hand versus intravenous lidocaine.

INTRODUCTION: Pain related to injection of propofol during induction of anesthesia decreases from 66.8% without prevention, to 22-31% of cases when lidocaine is associated. Hypnoanalgesia of the hand is currently used for painful procedures in children but has never been evaluated in this indication. The primary aim of this prospective randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy of hypnoanalgesia of the hand for the prevention of moderate to severe pain during intravenous injection of propofol alone in comparison to lidocaine admixture. The secondary aim was to compare the global satisfaction of children in both methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients aged 7-14 years, ASA 1-2, admitted for scheduled surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group L received a mixture of 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) and 1% Lidocaine (0.3 mg/kg). Group H received 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) after hypnoanalgesia of the hand realized by a single experimented operator. A video was made in order to evaluate the pain related to propofol injection by a blinded observer using the 4-point score of Cameron (painful ≥ 2). The global satisfaction of children was evaluated in postanesthesia care unit and documented if visual analog score was <7/10. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were analyzed. The rate of painful patients did not differ significantly between groups (8.5% in group H [n = 47] vs 6.1% in group L [n = 49], OR= 0.70; 95% CI [0.13-3.35], p = 0.65), nor did the rate of nonsatisfied patients (10.6 in group H vs. 12.2% in group L, OR = 0.85; 95% CI [0.19-3.65], p = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hypnoanalgesia of the hand alone is effective to prevent the pain related to propofol injection in children. No significant difference was found in comparison with lidocaine admixture nor for pain or satisfaction.

Assessing the Efficacy of Buffered Versus Nonbuffered Lidocaine in Dental Extractions: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Injections using buffered lidocaine may decrease discomfort, have a quicker onset, and be a more efficacious local anesthetic. Previous studies have been inconclusive in the oral context. PURPOSE: To address if bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine can decrease pain from the use of local anesthesia, has a quicker onset time, and is more efficacious. STUDY DESIGN: The design was a single-center double-blinded randomized control trial, set in an outpatient oral and maxillofacial clinic housed in the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Inclusion criteria for the study were patients requiring a single tooth extraction due either to caries or periodontal disease. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable was the local anesthetic used either nonbuffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (control) or bicarbonate buffered 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (study) was randomly assigned. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: Primary outcome variables were injection pain score, and postoperative pain, time to anesthetic onset, and the number of rounds of injections required to achieve adequate anesthesia. COVARIATES: The covariates were jaw involved, age, sex, and race, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, current tobacco use, history of psychiatric illness, chronic pain, and preoperative pain score. ANALYSES: Test statistics were calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Spearman rank correlation test, χ2 test for bivariate analyses, and Fisher's exact test. P values ≤ .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The final sample was 114 subjects. The mean age of the sample was 42.97 years, standard deviation ±13.43 years. The sample was 39.47% male. The racial demographics were Caucasian (62.28%) and African American (33.33%). Buffered lidocaine did not have a statistically significant relationship with any of the outcomes. The jaw involved had a statistically significant association to the injection pain score (P value = .006), and the number of rounds of anesthetic required (P value = .047). Age showed a statistically significant association to injection pain score (P value = .032), and the number of rounds of anesthetic required (P value = .027). Finally, preoperative pain had a statistically significant relationship with injection pain score (P value = < .001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this study, bicarbonate buffered lidocaine did not exhibit any discernible advantages over nonbuffered lidocaine for any study outcomes.

Efficacy of perioperative lidocaine infusion on surgical field quality during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of perioperative intravenous lidocaine versus placebo in improving the quality of surgical field during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were thoroughly searched from inception until June 2023. The included RCTs were evaluated via RoB-2 tool. Our primary endpoint included intraoperative surgical field quality, and secondary endpoints involved operative duration, estimated blood loss, time for post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge, postoperative pain, mean difference in heart rate (HR), and mean difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP). Continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) via RevMan software. Also, the certainty of evidence for each outcome were assessed according to the GRADE system. RESULTS: Four RCTs with total of 267 patients were included. Regarding the intraoperative quality of surgical field, the results indicated a significant difference in favor of the lidocaine group compared to the placebo group (n = 3 RCTs, MD - 0.80, 95% CI [- 0.98, - 0.61], p < 0.001, moderate certainty of evidence). The trial sequential analysis showed there is a substantial and conclusive evidence. Regarding time for PACU discharge, there was a significant difference that favor lidocaine group (p < 0.05). On the contrary, there was no significant difference between lidocaine and placebo groups in terms of operative duration, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain, mean change in MAP and HR, (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our review revealed that lidocaine infusion, compared with a placebo, significantly improved the surgical field and shortened the time required for PACU discharge. However, lidocaine did not reduce surgery time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain, MAP, or HR.

Nerve Block Guided by Anatomic Landmarks Only Reduces Pain in Botulinum Toxin Type A Treatment for Glabellar and Forehead Wrinkles.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A is widely used to treat glabellar and forehead wrinkles, but the pain caused by multiple injections often deters patients from receiving long-term treatment. Despite several methods used to alleviate this pain, consistency and effectiveness remain a challenge. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nerve block guided by anatomic landmarks only in reducing pain associated with botulinum toxin type A injections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2018 and 2022, the study enrolled 90 patients divided into 3 groups: the nerve block group (n = 30), the lidocaine cream group (n = 30), and the control group (n = 30). In the nerve block group, a landmarks-based technique was used to perform the nerve block. The study collected general information and comorbidities, and recorded pain at each point and time spent on preparation and treatment for each patient's forehead and glabellar area on each side. Patient-reported outcomes and complications were followed up at 2, 4, and 12 weeks after the injections. RESULTS: The nerve block group had significantly lower total pain scores in all regions compared to the lidocaine cream and control groups (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes between the groups at any follow-up point. Additionally, the complication rates related to injection were low and comparable among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nerve block guided by anatomic landmarks only is a safe, effective, and consistent approach to reduce pain during botulinum toxin type A treatment for glabellar and forehead lines. This technique may offer advantages over other methods used to alleviate the pain associated with these injections.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of lidocaine administered intravenously, intranasally or as infraorbital nerve block in dogs undergoing rostral rhinosocopy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of lidocaine administered intravenously, intranasally or as an infraorbital nerve block in dogs undergoing rostral rhinoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. ANIMALS: A total of 43 client-owned dogs. METHODS: After premedication with medetomidine 0.01 mg kg-1 and methadone 0.2 mg kg-1 intramuscularly, anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Dogs were randomly allocated to receive 2 mg kg-1 of 2% lidocaine as a bilateral infraorbital nerve block (INB) via the caudal intraoral approach, via bilateral topical intranasal administration (TIA) or as an intravenous bolus (IVB). At 5 minutes following lidocaine administration, responses to rhinoscopy (RR) and biopsies (RB) were evaluated using a simple scoring system (0: no reaction; 1: reaction). Response to the rhinoscopy in the recovery period (RE) was recorded. Recovery quality was scored using a simple descriptive score. Heart rate, respiratory rate and noninvasive arterial blood pressure were recorded. Intravenous (IV) fentanyl 0.001 mg kg-1 was administered if an increase > 20% in any variable occurred. Gross movement was attenuated using propofol 0.5 mg kg-1 IV. Scores were analysed using the Chi-square test with Monte Carlo method. Cardiorespiratory changes among and overtime between groups were compared using one-way anova and one-way anova for repeated measures, respectively, or the correspondent non-parametric tests; p < 0.05. RESULT: Of the 43 dogs, 42 completed the study. No statistically significant differences were detected in either physical reactions or changes in cardiorespiratory variables for RR, RB, RE or recovery quality, although RB tended to be higher in group TIA (7/10 versus 1/10 INB and 3/13 IVB).Various cardiorespiratory variables changed overtime within groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In dogs, all three investigated techniques attenuated responses during rostral rhinoscopy in dogs, although INB and IVB were more efficacious when biopsies were taken.

A comparative analysis of opioid-free and opioid-sparing anaesthesia techniques for laparoscopic ovariectomy in healthy dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative analgesic effects of an opioid-free (OFA) and an opioid-sparing (OSA) anaesthetic protocol in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial. ANIMALS: A group of 28 client-owned dogs. METHODS: Dogs were allocated to one of two groups. The OFA group was administered intramuscular (IM) dexmedetomidine 5 µg kg-1 and ketamine 1 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative constant rate infusions (CRIs) of dexmedetomidine (3 µg kg-1 hour-1) and lidocaine (1 mg kg-1 loading dose, 2 mg kg-1 hour-1). The OSA group was administered IM dexmedetomidine 5 µg kg-1, ketamine 1 mg kg-1 and methadone 0.2 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative saline CRIs. In both groups, anaesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) propofol 2 mg kg-1 and diazepam 0.2 mg kg-1 and maintained with isoflurane. Rescue dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg kg-1) was administered IV if there was a 20% increase in cardiovascular variables compared with pre-stimulation values. Ketorolac (0.5 mg kg-1) was administered IV when the surgery ended. Postoperative analgesia was evaluated using the Short Form-Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale and methadone (0.2 mg kg-1) was administered IM if the pain score was ≥ 6/24. Statistical analysis included mixed analysis of variance, Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the intraoperative monitored variables between groups. The OFA group showed a significantly lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement (p = 0.016) and lower postoperative pain scores at 3 (p =0.001) and 6 (p < 0.001) hours. No dogs were administered rescue methadone postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although both groups achieved acceptable postoperative pain scores with no need for further intervention, the analgesic efficacy of the OFA protocol was significantly superior to that of the OSA protocol presented and was associated with a lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement and early postoperative pain scores.

Influence of intravenous fentanyl or dexmedetomidine infusions, combined with lidocaine and ketamine, on cardiovascular response, sevoflurane requirement and postoperative pain in dogs anesthetized for unilateral mastectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of constant rate infusions (CRI) of fentanyl or dexmedetomidine, combined with lidocaine and ketamine, on cardiovascular response during surgery, sevoflurane requirement and postoperative pain in dogs undergoing mastectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial. ANIMALS: A total of 29 female dogs with mammary tumors. METHODS: Premedication consisted of intramuscular acepromazine and morphine. General anesthesia was induced with intravenous propofol and maintained with sevoflurane. Dogs were randomized to be administered intravenous DLK [dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg-1 loading dose (LD) and 1 µg kg-1 hour-1; lidocaine 2 mg kg-1 LD and 3 mg kg-1 hour-1; ketamine 1 mg kg-1 LD and 0.6 mg kg-1 hour-1; n = 14] or FLK (fentanyl 5 µg kg-1 LD and 9 µg kg-1 hour-1; same doses of lidocaine and ketamine; n = 15) during anesthesia. Cardiorespiratory variables and end-tidal sevoflurane (Fe'Sevo) were recorded during surgery. The number of dogs administered ephedrine to treat arterial hypotension [mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 60 mmHg] was recorded. Meloxicam was administered to both groups. Postoperative pain and rescue analgesia requirement were assessed for 24 hours using the short form of the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale. Data were compared using a mixed effects model or a Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: More dogs required ephedrine in FLK than in DLK (67% versus 7%). Heart rate was not significantly different between groups, whereas lower values of MAP (p ≤ 0.01) and Fe'Sevo (p = 0.018) were observed in FLK than in DLK. Rescue analgesia was administered to 2/15 dogs in FLK and 0/14 dogs in DLK. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the cardiovascular response during surgery, intraoperative infusions of FLK and DLK provided adequate antinociception. Infusion of DLK provided greater stability of blood pressure. Both protocols resulted in minimal need for additional analgesia within 24 hours postoperatively.