-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Dental Care; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29990391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy May 2022Bupivacaine is a more widely used anesthetic than mepivacaine. However, the long-acting effects of bupivacaine often lead to slow and unpredictable return. As an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Bupivacaine is a more widely used anesthetic than mepivacaine. However, the long-acting effects of bupivacaine often lead to slow and unpredictable return. As an intermediate-acting local anesthetic, mepivacaine can enable earlier ambulation and thus has other benefits. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic effects of mepivacaine and bupivacaine.
METHODS
On August 12, 2021, a search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Effect estimates with 95% CI were combined using a random effects model. We performed sensitivity analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity and stability of results.
RESULTS
Of the 406 papers screened, 14 population-based randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1007 patients. Overall, compared to bupivacaine, mepivacaine was associated with higher numbers of motor block 3 (OR, 4.05; 95% CI 1.92-8.57), shorter length of stay (SMD, - 0.77; 95% CI - 1.52 to - 0.03), faster recovery from motor block (SMD, - 1.45; 95% CI - 2.39 to - 0.51), and shorter time to return to voiding (SMD, - 1.24; 95% CI - 1.83 to - 0.64). Mepivacaine was associated with a higher incidence of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) and transient nerve root irritation (TRI) (OR, 9.18; 95% CI 2.42-34.88). There was no statistical difference between the two anesthetics in terms of pain index on the postoperative day (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.46) and incidence of urinary retention (OR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.47-2.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Mepivacaine may have advantages over bupivacaine in terms of achieving motor block 3, shorter length of stay, earlier recovery from motor block, and earlier time to return to voiding, but it may have a higher incidence of TNS or TRI than bupivacaine. Therefore, mepivacaine may be used before bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia.
Topics: Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Bupivacaine; Humans; Mepivacaine; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35294737
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02088-3 -
Journal of the American Dental... Jan 2023Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction and in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US Clinical Trials registry through November 21, 2020. The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long- vs short-acting injectable anesthetics to reduce pain after tooth extraction (systematic review 1) and evaluated the effect of topical anesthetics in patients with symptomatic pulpitis (systematic review 2). Pairs of reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs comparing long- vs short-acting local anesthetics suggest that bupivacaine may decrease the use of rescue analgesia and may not result in additional adverse effects (low certainty evidence). Bupivacaine probably reduces the amount of analgesic consumption compared with lidocaine with epinephrine (mean difference, -1.91 doses; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.46; moderate certainty) and mepivacaine (mean difference, -1.58 doses; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.95; moderate certainty). Five RCTs suggest that both benzocaine 10% and 20% may increase the number of people experiencing pain reduction compared with placebo when managing acute irreversible pulpitis (low certainty).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Bupivacaine may be superior to lidocaine with epinephrine and mepivacaine with regard to time to and amount of analgesic consumption. Benzocaine may be superior to placebo in reducing pain for 20 through 30 minutes after application.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Benzocaine; Bupivacaine; Epinephrine; Lidocaine; Mepivacaine; Pulpitis
PubMed: 36608963
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2022.10.014 -
The Journal of Arthroplasty Jul 2022Mepivacaine is an intermediate acting amide local anesthetic that can be used for neuraxial anesthesia in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a shorter duration of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mepivacaine is an intermediate acting amide local anesthetic that can be used for neuraxial anesthesia in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a shorter duration of action (1.5-2 hours) compared to the more commonly used local anesthetic bupivacaine. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing bupivacaine and mepivacaine spinal anesthesia during elective TJA and the surgical outcomes of the time to full neurologic motor return, pain, mobility, length of stay (LOS), and complications including transient neurologic symptoms and urinary function.
METHODS
PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase were screened for "arthroplasty, spinal anesthesia, bupivacaine, and mepivacaine," in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 159 studies were screened and 5 studies were evaluated. Data were compared regarding motor function return, mobility (distance ambulated), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), LOS, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
Full-text screening yielded 5 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective cohort studies), with a total of 1,550 patients. Mepivacaine spinals had an earlier return to motor function (154 minutes vs 170 minutes, 95% CI: [-31.6, -0.9], P = .04), shorter LOS (25.95 hours vs 29.96 hours, 95% CI: [-6.8, -1.2], P = .01), and decreased urinary retention (7.15% vs 10.58%, 95% CI: [-6.3%, -0.6%], P = .02) with no differences in pain (VAS 3.57 vs 3.68, 95% CI: [-2.1, 1.9], P = .90) or distance ambulated (94.2 ft vs 89.1 ft, 95% CI: [-15, 25.2], P = .60) compared to bupivacaine spinal anesthesia.
CONCLUSIONS
The method of anesthesia administration has been an increasing area of focus for quicker and safer recovery to allow for early ambulation and facility discharge. The rapid recovery facilitated by mepivacaine may further enable outpatient TJA and enhance patient recovery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
III.
Topics: Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Bupivacaine; Humans; Mepivacaine; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35306162
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.031 -
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology,... Mar 2018Many studies have shown that local anesthetics may impede chondrocyte metabolism. However, the influence of a single-dose local anesthetics is controversial. The aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Many studies have shown that local anesthetics may impede chondrocyte metabolism. However, the influence of a single-dose local anesthetics is controversial. The aim of this metaanalysis was to review the literature for studies investigating the cytotoxic effects of single-dose local anesthetics on chondrocytes and cartilage.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using established search engines (Medline, Embase) to identify studies, investigating the influence of single-dose local anesthetics on cartilage. The systematic analysis included the influence on histology, cell viability, morphology, and matrix production depending upon dose, exposure time, and type of local anesthetics.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with four different local anesthetics were included in this metaanalysis. Bupivacaine and lidocaine were found to be more chondrotoxic than mepivacaine and ropivacaine. The amount of dead cells increased in a substance-, dose-, and time-dependent process. Osteoarthritic cartilage seems to be more vulnerable compared to intact cartilage. The toxic effects occur first in the superficial cartilage layers and include damage to membrane integrity, mitochondrial DNA, and nuclear changes. There is no study that could show a significant chondrotoxic effect with low concentrations of bupivacaine (0.0625%), ropivacaine (0.1 and 0.2%), and mepivacaine (0.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
The cytotoxicity of local anesthetics on chondrocytes is dependent on dose, time, and type of local anesthetics. Single-dose intra-articular administration of local anesthetics impede chondrocyte metabolism and should be performed only with low concentrations for selected diagnostic purposes and painful joints. The use of lidocaine should be avoided.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
II.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Cartilage; Cell Survival; Cells, Cultured; Chondrocytes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans
PubMed: 28289821
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4470-5 -
Severe Anaphylaxis in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Presentation to Determine Outcomes.Journal of Personalized Medicine Oct 2021Anaphylactic reactions during pregnancy can range from subjective cutaneous symptoms to anaphylaxis and lethal anaphylactic shock. The fetal and maternal outcomes are... (Review)
Review
Anaphylactic reactions during pregnancy can range from subjective cutaneous symptoms to anaphylaxis and lethal anaphylactic shock. The fetal and maternal outcomes are unpredictable. This study is the first systematic review of the clinical presentation of severe anaphylaxis in pregnancy as defined by the World Allergy Organization to determine maternal and fetal outcomes. We searched PubMed, the Web of Science, and Scopus databases for articles published between 1 January 1985 and 15 April 2021 using the following terms (((anaphylactic shock) AND (pregnancy)) OR ((anaphylaxis) AND (pregnancy))). In 42 studies involving 47 patients, 36.17% of patients were 31-35 years old, and 74.47% of cases occurred peripartum, mostly during cesarean section. Accurate diagnosis with valid and reliable outcome measures was reported for 71.74% of cases. Twenty-two allergens were identified: antibiotics (penicillins and cephalosporins), anesthetic drugs (suxamethonium, mepivacaine), latex, oxytocin, sodium and sucrose iron, laminaria, misoprostol, rubber from Foley catheter, oral phytomenadione, ranitidine, chamomile, and ant sting. Two cases of maternal death related to latex and intravenous iron sucrose, and six infants with neurological disease were reported, mostly related to antibiotics. This review of the currently available literature shows that favorable outcomes are attainable with a high degree of observation, multidisciplinary cooperation, and rapid treatment.
PubMed: 34834412
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11111060 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2023This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of local anesthetic administration into temporomandibular joint cavities in... (Review)
Review
This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of local anesthetic administration into temporomandibular joint cavities in relieving pain and increasing mandibular mobility. Randomized controlled trials were included with no limitation on report publication dates. Final searches were performed on 15 October 2023, using engines provided by the US National Library, Bielefeld University, and Elsevier Publishing House. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Articular pain and mandible abduction values and their mean differences were summarized in tables and graphs. Eight studies on a total of 252 patients evaluating intra-articular administration of articaine, bupivacaine, lidocaine, and mepivacaine were included in the systematic review. None of the eligible studies presented a high risk of bias in any of the assessed domains. An analgesic effect of intra-articular bupivacaine was observed for up to 24 h. In the long-term follow-up, there were no statistically significant changes in quantified pain compared to both the baseline value and the placebo group, regardless of the anesthetic used (articaine, bupivacaine, and lidocaine). There is no scientific evidence on the effect of intra-articular administration of local anesthesia on the range of motion of the mandible. Therefore, in the current state of knowledge, the administration of local anesthetics into the temporomandibular joint cavities can only be considered as a short-term pain relief measure.
PubMed: 38202113
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13010106 -
Journal of the American Dental... Dec 2020The authors aimed to assess whether 4% articaine is a safe and effective local anesthetic (LA) for mandibular third-molar extractions. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The authors aimed to assess whether 4% articaine is a safe and effective local anesthetic (LA) for mandibular third-molar extractions.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. The authors performed a meta-analysis of safety and efficacy variables comparing 4% articaine with different LAs.
RESULTS
The authors assessed 482 articles but only 14 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria for review. No statistically significant differences were found among the selected LAs regarding safety. Four percent articaine required fewer reinjections than 2% lidocaine and had a shorter onset time than 2% lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine, and 4% lidocaine. Four percent articaine had a longer anesthesia effect than 2% lidocaine and 2% mepivacaine, but a shorter anesthesia effect than 0.5% bupivacaine.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Use of 4% articaine for mandibular third-molar extraction is a safe choice that requires fewer reinjections and has a shorter onset time than other aminoamide-type LAs.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Carticaine; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Lidocaine; Molar; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33228884
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.08.016 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Sep 2020Ambulatory anorectal surgery requires an anesthetic of short duration but profound depth. Saddle block anesthesia (SBA) can provide dense sacral anesthesia with minimal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ambulatory anorectal surgery requires an anesthetic of short duration but profound depth. Saddle block anesthesia (SBA) can provide dense sacral anesthesia with minimal motor blockade, but the ideal local anesthetic agent remains undefined. This systematic review aims to identify the optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery.
METHODS
We sought randomized trials examining SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery and stratified patients into four subgroups according to local anesthetic type and dose: (1) longer acting, higher dose; (2) longer acting, lower dose; (3) shorter acting, higher dose; and (4) shorter acting, lower dose. Longer acting agents included bupivacaine and levobupivacaine; shorter acting agents included chloroprocaine, mepivacaine, and prilocaine. Lower dose was defined as ≤5 mg and ≤20 mg for longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to discharge; secondary outcomes included times to sensory and motor block regression, urine voiding, and ambulation, as well as block success.
RESULTS
A total of 11 trials (1063 patients) were included. Overall study quality and reporting consistency was poor. Doses ranged from 1.5-7.5 mg to 3-30 mg of longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. Hyperbaric local anesthetics were used in eight trials (953 patients, 86%). The median time to discharge appeared similar across all subgroups with an overall time of 182 (IQR 102) min. The use of long-acting, lower dose regimens was associated with a faster median time to motor block regression. Block success approached 99% among all trials.
CONCLUSIONS
There is presently insufficient qualitative and quantitative evidence to identify an optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery. Nonetheless, we found that doses as low as 1.5 and 3 mg of longer and shorter acting hyperbaric local anesthetics, respectively, can achieve effective and reliable SBA with timely hospital discharge. Despite similar discharge times, longer acting, lower dose local anesthetics may produce faster motor block regression following SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Bupivacaine; Humans; Mepivacaine
PubMed: 32699103
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2020-101603 -
International Endodontic Journal Oct 2018This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mepivacaine and lidocaine for pulpal anaesthesia and pain control when administered via an inferior alveolar nerve block... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mepivacaine and lidocaine for pulpal anaesthesia and pain control when administered via an inferior alveolar nerve block during the root canal treatment of mandibular molars in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. A research protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO. The systematic search was conducted during May 2017 in eight databases. The studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two examiners analysed the sample independently, decided the eligibility for inclusion and classified the articles according to their quality. Statistical analysis was performed with Mantel-Haenszel and I-square (I ) tests considering a confidence interval of 95%. The initial sample consisted of 1130 articles, out of which four were eligible. The articles were published between 1993 and 2016. For both pulpal anaesthesia and pain control, there was no significant difference between mepivacaine and lidocaine (P = 0.843, I = 0%, and P = 0.183, I = 21.1%, respectively). Mepivacaine and lidocaine were similarly effective for pulpal anaesthesia and pain control after inferior alveolar nerve blocks for root canal treatment.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine; Mepivacaine; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pulpitis
PubMed: 29577321
DOI: 10.1111/iej.12926