-
Human Fertility (Cambridge, England) Dec 2023We systematically investigated the efficacy and safety of EMLA (5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream) versus placebo for pain relief among infertile patients undergoing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We systematically investigated the efficacy and safety of EMLA (5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream) versus placebo for pain relief among infertile patients undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG). We screened four databases from inception until 25 November 2020. We included only randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and assessed their risk of bias. The main efficacy outcomes included safety and pain scores during the different stages of HSG. The pooled outcomes were summarised as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Three RCTs were included, comprising 258 patients (131 and 127 patients received EMLA and placebo, respectively). All RCTs revealed an overall low risk of bias. EMLA significantly reduced pain perception during cervical instrumentation of tenaculum and cannula ( = -1.53, 95% CI [-2.59, -0.47], = 0.005) and at 24 h after completion of HSG ( = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.57, -0.03], = 0.04). Despite EMLA decreased pain perception during the other procedural stages of HSG, the differences were not statistically significant compared with placebo. EMLA was safe and free of local and systemic adverse reactions. This meta-analysis advocates that topical application of 5% EMLA cream is safe and correlates with decreased pain perception during HSG, particularly during the cervical instrumentation step and at 24 h after HSG completion.
Topics: Female; Humans; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Hysterosalpingography; Infertility; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35220865
DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2022.2040748 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that breastfeeding newborn infants during painful procedures reduces pain. Mechanisms are considered to be multifactorial and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that breastfeeding newborn infants during painful procedures reduces pain. Mechanisms are considered to be multifactorial and include sucking, skin-to-skin contact, warmth, rocking, sound and smell of the mother, and possibly endogenous opiates present in the breast milk.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of breastfeeding on procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period (first 28 days of life) up to one year of age compared to no intervention, placebo, parental holding, skin-to-skin contact, expressed breast milk, formula milk, bottle feeding, sweet-tasting solutions (e.g. sucrose or glucose), distraction, or other interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to 18 February 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and CINAHL (EBSCO); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving infants aged 28 days postnatal to 12 months and receiving breastfeeding while undergoing a painful procedure. Comparators included, but were not limited to, oral administration of water, sweet-tasting solutions, expressed breast or formula milk, no intervention, use of pacifiers, positioning, cuddling, distraction, topical anaesthetics, and skin-to-skin care. Procedures included, but were not limited to: subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, venipuncture, intravenous line insertion, heel lance, and finger lance. We applied no language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The main outcome measures were behavioural or physiological indicators and composite pain scores, as well as other clinically important outcomes reported by the authors of included studies. We pooled data for the most comparable outcomes and where data from at least two studies could be included. We used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), employing a random-effects model for continuous outcomes measured on the same scales. For continuous outcomes measured on different scales, we pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and associated 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, we planned to pool events between groups across studies using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. However, as insufficient studies reported dichotomous outcomes, we did not pool such events. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies with a total of 1066 infants. All studies were conducted during early childhood immunisation. As the breastfeeding intervention cannot be blinded, we rated all studies as being at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We assessed nine studies as being at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. In addition, we rated nine studies as high risk for blinding of outcome assessment. We scored risk of bias related to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting as unclear for the majority of the studies due to lack of information.Our primary outcome was pain. Breastfeeding reduced behavioural pain responses (cry time and pain scores) during vaccination compared to no treatment, oral water, and other interventions such as cuddling, oral glucose, topical anaesthetic, massage, and vapocoolant. Breastfeeding did not consistently reduce changes in physiological indicators, such as heart rate. We pooled data for duration of cry from six studies (n = 547 infants). Breastfeeding compared to water or no treatment resulted in a 38-second reduction in cry time (MD -38, 95% CI -50 to -26; P < 0.00001). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE for this outcome was moderate, as most infants were 6 months or younger, and outcomes may be different for infants during their 12-month immunisation. We pooled data for pain scores from five studies (n = 310 infants). Breastfeeding was associated with a 1.7-point reduction in standardised pain scores (SMD -1.7, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.3); we considered this evidence to be of moderate quality as data were primarily from infants younger than 6 months of age. We could pool heart rate data following injections for only two studies (n = 186); we considered this evidence to be of low quality due to insufficient data. There were no differences between breastfeeding and control (MD -3.6, -23 to 16).Four of the 10 studies had more than two study arms. Breastfeeding was more effective in reducing crying duration or pain scores during vaccination compared to: 25% dextrose and topical anaesthetic cream (EMLA), vapocoolant, maternal cuddling, and massage.No included studies reported adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We conclude, based on the 10 studies included in this review, that breastfeeding may help reduce pain during vaccination for infants beyond the neonatal period. Breastfeeding consistently reduced behavioural responses of cry duration and composite pain scores during and following vaccinations. However, there was no evidence that breastfeeding had an effect on physiological responses. No studies included in this review involved populations of hospitalised infants undergoing other skin-breaking procedures. Although it may be possible to extrapolate the review results to this population, further studies of efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability in this population are warranted.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Breast Feeding; Crying; Female; Glucose; Heart Rate; Humans; Infant; Infant Care; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Massage; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Vaccination
PubMed: 27792244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011248.pub2 -
Burns & Trauma 2022Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There...
BACKGROUND
Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There is no systematic review of their effectiveness in providing post-harvest analgesia, or of the possible toxic effects of systemic absorption. This study is designed to address the question of which agent, if any, is favoured over the others and whether there are any safety data regarding their use.
METHODS
Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials of topical agents applied to STSG DSWs, with a view to providing analgesia. Studies identified via search of Cochrane and EBSCO databases. No restrictions on language or publication year. Primary outcomes: pain at the time of (awake) STSG, and post-harvest pain (up to first dressing change). Secondary outcome was serum medication levels relative to published data on toxic doses. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool utilised in assessment of included studies. At least 2 reviewers screened and reviewed included studies. A narrative review is presented.
RESULTS
There were 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality and patient numbers were low. Topical eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine pre-harvest affords good local anaesthesia in awake STSG harvesting. Topical bupivacaine (5 studies) or lidocaine (1 study) gave significantly better post-harvest anaesthesia/analgesia than placebo. Topical morphine performs no better than placebo. Topical local anaesthetic agents at reported doses were all well below toxic serum levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical local anaesthetics (lidocaine or bupivacaine) provide good analgesia, both during and after STSG harvest, at well below toxic serum levels, but there are no good data determining the best local anaesthetic agent to use. There is no evidence morphine performs better than placebo.
PubMed: 36133279
DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkac020 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Jan 2019Besides erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation (PE) is the most frequent male sexual disorder and shows a high level of bother and distress. The negative...
INTRODUCTION
Besides erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation (PE) is the most frequent male sexual disorder and shows a high level of bother and distress. The negative consequences of long-term and unsuccessfully treated PE on both patient and partner are well established in the literature and include personal distress, impairment of the partner's sexual function, and interpersonal difficulties.
AIM
To outline the consequences of untreated PE and the advantages and disadvantages of currently available treatment options with a special focus on a new topical eutectic lidocaine/prilocaine metered dose spray (Fortacin; Lidocaine/Prilocaine, Recordati, Milan, Italy) which represents the second officially approved drug in this indication.
METHODS
Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases such as Web of Science, Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar, hand searches, and authoritative texts. Combinations of keywords including premature ejaculation, ejaculatory control, intravaginal ejaculation latency time, IELT, PE, PDE5 inhibitors (PDE5i), SSRIs, topical anesthetics, lidocaine, prilocaine, and treatment were used. In the end, 59 studies published between 2000 and 2018 were considered relevant for this review.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Published studies on PE-related negative psychosocial outcomes, as well as advantages and disadvantages of currently available off-label and officially approved treatment options.
RESULTS
Although a variety of treatment options for PE have shown marked improvements in stopwatch-measured intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) and patient-reported outcomes as assessed by the Premature Ejaculation Profile (PEP), none of the investigated drugs has reached market approval. The only so far officially approved medication-dapoxetine-is characterized by high discontinuation rates of up to 90%, mostly because of high side effects, cost issues, efficacy below expectations, and the need for scheduling sexual intercourse.
CONCLUSION
With the official approval in Europe the new dose-metered lidocaine-prilocaine spray (Fortacin) may become a real first-line therapy option for PE and may offer a satisfactory and affordable solution, especially because of its unique galenic preparation, making its handling easy and customer friendly. In addition, it has the potential to significantly increase the currently low patients' acceptance of available monotherapies and become an established second-line therapy for the severe PE patients with IELTs <1 to 2 minutes or with ante-portal ejaculation in combination with oral therapy. Porst H, Burri A. Novel treatment for premature ejaculation in the light of currently used therapies: A review. Sex Med Rev 2019; 7:129-140.
Topics: Benzylamines; Coitus; Ejaculation; Humans; Male; Naphthalenes; Patient Satisfaction; Penile Erection; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Premature Ejaculation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30057136
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.05.001 -
Central European Journal of Urology 2019The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and harms of periprostatic block compared with other interventions in patients with clinically suspected... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and harms of periprostatic block compared with other interventions in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent transrectal biopsy to diminish pain.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We included only clinical trials which involved male adults older than 18 years-old suspected of having prostate cancer. The intervention performed was a periprostatic block and the comparators were topical anesthetics, sedatives, placebo/no intervention or combined therapies. The primary outcome was perianal or perineal pain and serious adverse effects (SAE). Literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL and non-published literature from inception to March 2019. We performed a network meta-analysis in R.
RESULTS
We included 43 studies in the meta-analysis. Thirteen studies compared periprostatic block vs. placebo/no intervention (the most frequent). Most of the studies had an unclear risk of bias for selection, performance and detection bias and low risk for attrition, reporting and other bias. Periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) showed an RR -0.9 (95%CI - 1.9 to 0.074); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) had a RR 0.77 (95%CI 0.14 to 1.4); placebo/no intervention vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine+prilocaine) RR 3 (95%CI 1.9 to 4); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) versus periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) RR 1.7 (95%CI 0.64 to 2.7).
CONCLUSIONS
The blockage of the periprostatic plexus in the performance of a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy, alone or in combination with intrarectal analgesia or sedation, is an effective method to reduce pain.
PubMed: 31482018
DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1874 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Sep 2022Although local anesthetics have been extensively studied, limited evidence is available regarding the optimal solution for maximizing patient comfort in minor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although local anesthetics have been extensively studied, limited evidence is available regarding the optimal solution for maximizing patient comfort in minor oculoplastic procedures.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries to maximize patient comfort.
METHODS
This systematic review with network meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted to understand the efficacy of different local anesthetics in combination to maximize patient comfort. The study was designed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The population comprised patients receiving local infiltration anesthesia in minor oculoplastic surgeries. Various anesthetics with adjuvants were compared with respect to injection pain, operative bleeding, and complications. Random-effects model was performed. The primary outcome of injection pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) or a preference question (which intervention was the least painful). Other outcomes were operative bleeding and complications, which were evaluated with a similar preference question.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 521 patients (917 eyes) were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that "bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" led to a significant decrease in injection pain (preference question) compared to "prilocaine with felypressin" and "lidocaine with epinephrine," whereas no significant differences were detected in the analysis of injection pain measured using the VAS.
CONCLUSIONS
"Bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" may be the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries due to reduced injection pain, operative bleeding, and postoperative swelling. However, this should be interpreted cautiously as the confidence in the evidence was very low.
THE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021260332 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Bicarbonates; Double-Blind Method; Epinephrine; Felypressin; Lidocaine; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Patient Comfort; Prilocaine
PubMed: 35961926
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.06.058 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned because of concern about adverse effects, thus novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed. This review was originally published in 2011 and has been updated in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether benefits of non-invasive topical anaesthetic application occur at the expense of decreased analgesic efficacy. To compare the efficacy of various single-component or multi-component topical anaesthetic agents for repair of dermal lacerations. To determine the clinical necessity for topical application of the ester anaesthetic, cocaine.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 2010 to December 2016), Embase (2010 to December 2016) and MEDLINE (2010 to December 2016). We did not limit this search by language or format of publication. We contacted manufacturers, international scientific societies and researchers in the field. Weemailed selected journalsand reviewed meta-registers of ongoing trials. For the previous version of this review, we searched these databases to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration in adult and paediatric participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information when needed. We collected adverse event information from trial reports. We assessed methodological risk of bias for each included study and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The present updated review included 25 RCTs involving 3278 participants. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data for all but one outcome: pain intensity. In two pooled studies, the mean self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) score for topical prilocaine-phenylephrine (PP) was higher than the mean self-reported VAS (0 to 100 mm) score for topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine (TAC) by 5.59 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16 to 13.35). Most trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics were at high risk of bias, which is likely to have affected their results. Researchers found that several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics provided effective analgesic efficacy. However, data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent are based mostly on single comparisons in trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one of 1042 participants who had undergone application of TAC. Investigators reported no serious complications among any of the participants treated with cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have found two new studies published since the last version of this review was prepared. We have added these studies to those previously included and have conducted an updated analysis, which resulted in the same review conclusions as were presented previously.Mostly descriptive analysis indicates that topical anaesthetics may offer an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. Use of cocaine-based topical anaesthetics might be hard to justify, given the availability of other effective topical anaesthetics without cocaine. However, the overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Child; Cocaine; Drug Combinations; Epinephrine; Humans; Lacerations; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin; Sutures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 28230244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005364.pub3 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Sep 2015Cannulation of children is often required for administration of intravenous fluids and medications, but can cause pain and anxiety. Amethocaine and a eutectic mixture of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Does topical Amethocaine cream increase first-time successful cannulation in children compared with a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Cannulation of children is often required for administration of intravenous fluids and medications, but can cause pain and anxiety. Amethocaine and a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream are two of the most commonly used local anaesthetic creams.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the evidence for the superiority of Amethocaine cream compared with EMLA cream in facilitating successful first-time cannulation in children.
METHOD
A systematic search was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2014. Studies examining cannulation, undertaken with children and providing data about first-time cannulation success rates were considered for inclusion. Three randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data extraction was undertaken independently by the two authors using predefined data fields.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis was based on a random effects model. Low statistical heterogeneity was observed. Amethocaine cream increased the likelihood of successful first-time cannulation (RR 1.046, CI 0.975 to 1.122), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.211).
CONCLUSIONS
Amethocaine cream does not appear to significantly facilitate successful first-time cannulation. Lack of precision and design weaknesses of the included studies hinder the formation of a strong recommendation for either cream.
IMPLICATIONS
Based on the evidence reviewed here and considering analgesic properties and cost-savings associated with both creams, a weak recommendation can be issued in favour of Amethocaine cream for cannulation in children based on high-quality evidence but where the treatment choice will depend on other factors including cost and provider preference.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anesthetics, Local; Catheterization; Child; Humans; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Prilocaine; Tetracaine
PubMed: 25351196
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2014-204066 -
International Journal of Urology :... Jan 2015To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined intrarectal local analgesia and periprostatic nerve block versus periprostatic nerve block alone for pain control during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Addition of intrarectal local analgesia to periprostatic nerve block improves pain control for transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined intrarectal local analgesia and periprostatic nerve block versus periprostatic nerve block alone for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library trials. Studies comparing the two techniques were identified and pooled for cumulative analysis. The outcome measurements included visual pain scales of three consecutive procedures of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, as well as short-term postoperative complication rates.
RESULTS
There were 18 studies that were finally eligible for the quantitative analysis involving 2076 participants. Combined modalities significantly reduced the pain associated with probe manipulation (weighted mean difference -2.06, 95% confidence interval -2.77 to -1.35, P < 0.001), anesthesia infiltration (weighted mean difference -1.45, 95% confidence interval -2.20 to -0.70, P < 0.001) and needle biopsy (weighted mean difference -0.55, 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.34, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses assessing different local analgesics showed that local anesthetics are generally more effective than myorelaxant and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Lidocaine-prilocaine cream proved the most effective in pain control regardless of the origin of pain. No significant difference of short-term postoperative complications (fever, dysuria, acute urinary retention, hematuria, hematospermia and rectal bleeding) was found between the two techniques. The only side-effect associated with local analgesics was headache reported in studies using glyceryl trinitrate ointment.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined modalities show better analgesic efficacy than periprostatic nerve block alone for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy without increased morbidities. Among the various local analgesics, lidocaine-prilocaine cream seems to offer the best overall efficacy.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthetics, Local; Biopsy, Needle; Humans; Male; Nerve Block; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Prostate; Rectum; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 25141759
DOI: 10.1111/iju.12595 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015The authors have requested this review to be withdrawn. The reason is the intervention, lidocaine‐prilocaine cream for analgesia during neonatal circumcision, is... (Review)
Review
The authors have requested this review to be withdrawn. The reason is the intervention, lidocaine‐prilocaine cream for analgesia during neonatal circumcision, is covered in the Cochrane Review of "Pain relief for neonatal circumcision" (Brady‐Fryer 2004). The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Male; Ointments; Prilocaine
PubMed: 25840001
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000496.pub2