-
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resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.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 -
Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 2021Respiratory complications are one of the main problems in paediatric anaesthesia. Cherubism is a rare fami-lial disease causing enlargement of the mandible that may be...
Respiratory complications are one of the main problems in paediatric anaesthesia. Cherubism is a rare fami-lial disease causing enlargement of the mandible that may be associated with difficult intubation [1, 2]. A 5-year-old, 20 kg, ASA 1, healthy girl was evaluated for anaesthesia requested for the removal of mandibular lesions (Figure 1). She had a positive family history of cherubism; her father and cousins were affected. Radiogra-phically, the lesions demonstrated multilocular, expansile radiolucencies with mandibular enlargement. The preoperative examination was unremarkable: normal neck flexion, no trismus, and a Mallampati score of 1. A venous catheter was inserted peripherally under N2O inhalation and transdermic lidocaine and prilocaine patch. The general anaesthesia combined sevoflurane and IV sufentanil. Nasotracheal intubation under direct laryngoscopy was uneventful. After the surgery, which lasted 120 minutes, she was admitted to the post anaesthesia care unit for 1 night and discharged the next day without any sequelae.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesiology; Cherubism; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Laryngoscopy
PubMed: 34006057
DOI: 10.5114/ait.2021.105980 -
International Journal of Pharmaceutics Jun 2021Lipid nanocapsules (LNC) are special drug delivery system (DDS) carriers obtained by the phase-inversion temperature method (PIT). This study describes the encapsulation...
Lipid nanocapsules (LNC) are special drug delivery system (DDS) carriers obtained by the phase-inversion temperature method (PIT). This study describes the encapsulation of the local anesthetics (LA) prilocaine (PLC) and lidocaine (LDC) in lipid nanocapsules (LNC) optimized by 2 factorial design, characterized through DLS, NTA, CRYO-EM and release kinetics and incorporated in carbopol gel (Gel) prior to in vivo anesthetic effect (in mice) evaluation. A very homogeneous population of small (50 nm; polydispersity index = 0.05) spherical nanocapsules with negative zeta potentials (-21 mV) and ca. 2.3 × 10 particles/mL was obtained. The encapsulation efficiency was high (81% and 89% for prilocaine and lidocaine, respectively). The release rate profile was free PLC = free LDC > LNC > Gel. The hybrid system increased (4x) the anesthesia time in comparison to an equipotent gel formulation prepared without LNC. No tissue damage was detected on the tail skin of mice that received the formulations. This study shows that lipid nanocapsules are suitable carriers for PLC and LDC, promoting longer and safer topical anesthesia. Gel is mucoadhesive and suitable for application in the mouth, where it could be used as a pre-anesthetic, to reduce pain of needle stick (infiltrative anesthesia).
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Animals; Lidocaine; Lipids; Mice; Nanocapsules; Prilocaine
PubMed: 33961954
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120675 -
Urologia Dec 2017Premature ejaculation (PE) is a common complaint of male sexual dysfunction affecting men and their partners and consequently causing significant personal and... (Review)
Review
Premature ejaculation (PE) is a common complaint of male sexual dysfunction affecting men and their partners and consequently causing significant personal and interpersonal distress. Increased sensitivity of the glans penis and abnormalities of the afferent-efferent reflex pathway within the ejaculatory process are involved in the occurrence of PE. Drugs that either selectively reduce penile sensitization or modify the afferent-efferent reflex are well established therapeutic options for PE. Fortacin™ is the first topical treatment to be officially approved for the treatment of primary PE in adult men, and is mentioned as an experimental aerosol (as TEMPE) in the current European Association of Urology guidelines. It was approved for use in the European Union and launched in the United Kingdom in November 2016. Fortacin™ is a eutectic-like mixture of lidocaine 150 mg/mL and prilocaine 50 mg/mL that meets the requirements of an ideal treatment for PE because it is fast acting (within 5 minutes), has durable effects, can be easily used "on-demand", and shows minimal side-effects. The metered-dose spray delivery system allows the desensitizing agents to be deposited in a dose-controlled, concentrated film onto the glans penis consequently reducing its sensitivity. This is translated into a delaying of the ejaculatory latency time without adversely affecting the sensation of ejaculation and orgasmic pleasure. The efficacy and safety of Fortacin™ have been proven by means of increased ejaculatory latency, control, and sexual satisfaction in large scale studies demonstrating the significant benefits for both patients and their partners.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Premature Ejaculation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30047847
DOI: 10.5301/uj.5000275 -
BMC Pediatrics Jun 2023To characterize clinical profile of pediatric local anesthetic (LA) systemic toxicity (LAST) and to identify determinants of life-threatening outcomes.
PURPOSE
To characterize clinical profile of pediatric local anesthetic (LA) systemic toxicity (LAST) and to identify determinants of life-threatening outcomes.
METHODS
Spontaneous reports notified to the French Pharmacovigilance Network were retrieved and followed by a case-by-case review, according to the following criteria: LA as suspected drug, age < 18 years, adverse drug reactions related to nervous system, cardiac, respiratory, psychiatric or general disorders. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors leading to life-threatening reaction (i.e. continuous seizures or cardiorespiratory arrest).
RESULTS
Among 512 cases retrieved, 64 LAST cases were included (neonates 11%, infants 30%, children 36%, adolescents 23%) mainly involving lidocaine (47%), lidocaine + prilocaine (22%) and ropivacaine (14%). Toxicity profiles were neurological (58%), cardiac (11%) or mixed (20%) and 7 patients (11%) developed methemoglobinemia. LAST was life-threatening for 23 patients (36%) and 2 patients died. Doses were above recommendations in 26 patients (41%) and were not different between life-threatening and non-life-threatening cases. The context of use (general and orthopedic surgery, p = 0.006) and the type of LA agent (lidocaine, p = 0.016) were independently associated with a life-threatening outcome.
CONCLUSION
In this national retrospective analysis, LAST in children appear to be a rare event. Neurological and cardiac signs were the most frequently reported reactions. LAST in children can be life-threatening, even at therapeutic doses. Although a fatal outcome may anecdotally occur, the vast majority of patients recovered after appropriate medical care.
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Adolescent; Humans; Child; Anesthetics, Local; Pharmacovigilance; Retrospective Studies; Lidocaine; Ropivacaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination
PubMed: 37355586
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-023-04126-7 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Jun 2021This study investigated whether thymoquinone (TQ) could alleviate central nervous system (CNS) and cardiovascular toxicity of prilocaine, a commonly used local...
PURPOSE
This study investigated whether thymoquinone (TQ) could alleviate central nervous system (CNS) and cardiovascular toxicity of prilocaine, a commonly used local anesthetic.
METHODS
Rats were randomized to the following groups: control, prilocaine treated, TQ treated and prilocaine + TQ treated. Electroencephalography and electrocardiography electrodes were placed and trachea was intubated. Mechanical ventilation was initiated, right femoral artery was cannulated for continuous blood pressure measurements and blood-gas sampling while the left femoral vein was cannulated for prilocaine infusion. Markers of myocardial injury, reactive oxygen/nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) generation and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) were assayed by standard kits. Aquaporin-4 (AQP4), nuclear factor(NF)κB-p65 and -p50 subunit in brain tissue were evaluated by histological scoring.
RESULTS
Blood pH and partial oxygen pressure, was significantly decreased after prilocaine infusion. The decrease in blood pH was alleviated in the prilocaine + TQ treated group. Prilocaine produced seizure activity, cardiac arrhythmia and asystole at significantly lower doses compared to prilocaine + TQ treated rats. Thymoquinone administration attenuated levels of myocardial injury induced by prilocaine. Prilocaine treatment caused increased ROS/RNS formation and decreased TAC in heart and brain tissue. Thymoquinone increased heart and brain TAC and decreased ROS/RNS formation in prilocaine treated rats. AQP4, NFκB-p65 and NFκB-p50 expressions were increased in cerebellum, cerebral cortex, choroid plexus and thalamic nucleus in prilocaine treated rats. Thymoquinone, decreased the expression of AQP4, NFκB-p65 and NFκB-p50 in brain tissue in prilocaine + TQ treated rats.
CONCLUSION
Results indicate that TQ could ameliorate prilocaine-induced CNS and cardiovascular toxicity.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Aquaporin 4; Benzoquinones; Blood Pressure; Brain; Cardiotonic Agents; Cardiotoxicity; Epilepsy; Heart; Heart Rate; Male; Myocardium; NF-kappa B p50 Subunit; Neuroprotective Agents; Prilocaine; Rats, Wistar; Reactive Nitrogen Species; Reactive Oxygen Species; Transcription Factor RelA; Rats
PubMed: 33469802
DOI: 10.1007/s40199-020-00385-2 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2019This study aimed to demonstrate the antibacterial effects of bupivacaine and prilocaine on Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In our... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
This study aimed to demonstrate the antibacterial effects of bupivacaine and prilocaine on Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In our study, the in vitro antimicrobial effects of 20 mg/mL prilocaine and 5 mg/mL bupivacaine were tested against a S. aureus American-type culture collection (ATCC) 29213, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and E. coli ATCC 25922, divided into Group P (Prilocaine) and Group B (Bupivacaine), respectively. S. aureus ATCC 29213, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and E. coli ATCC 25922 were cultured on Mueller Hinton agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) plates for 18 to 24 hours at 37°C. In terms of inhibition zone diameters, inhibition of S. aureus ATCC 29213 was observed in both groups at the 12th and 24th hours. The 12th- and 24th-hour S. aureus ATCC 29213 value was significantly higher in Group P compared with Group B (P = .008). At the 12th and 24th hours, inhibition of E. coli ATCC 25922 was observed in both groups. The 12th- and 24th-hour E. coli ATCC 25922 value was significantly higher in Group P compared with Group B (P = .008). In our study, it was seen that prilocaine and bupivacaine had an antimicrobial effect on S. aureus and E. coli. In the comparison between these two local anesthetics (LAs), this effect was found to be significantly higher in prilocaine than bupivacaine. Therefore, we are of the opinion that antimicrobial effect potentials should also be taken into account in the selection of an LA agent in order to prevent the complications of an infection that might develop during LA infiltration and might lead to serious morbidity.
Topics: Bupivacaine; Escherichia coli; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Prilocaine; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Sensitivity and Specificity; Staphylococcus aureus; Statistics, Nonparametric
PubMed: 31407480
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13180 -
Local and Regional Anesthesia 2017Prilocaine is a local anesthetic characterized by intermediate potency and duration and fast onset of action. As hyperbaric formulation of 5% solution, it was introduced... (Review)
Review
Prilocaine is a local anesthetic characterized by intermediate potency and duration and fast onset of action. As hyperbaric formulation of 5% solution, it was introduced and has been successfully used for spinal anesthesia since 1960. A new formulation of 2% plain and hyperbaric solution is currently available in Europe. Because of its lower incidence of transient neurological symptoms, prilocaine is suggested as substitute to lidocaine and mepivacaine in spinal anesthesia for ambulatory surgery, as well as a suitable alternative to low doses of long-acting local anesthetics. The National Library of Medicine database, the Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, were searched for the period 1970 to September 2016, with the aim to identify studies evaluating the intrathecal use of 2% prilocaine. A total of 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 1 observational study, 2 dose finding, and 4 systematic reviews has been used for this review. The studies evaluated showed that 2% hyperbaric prilocaine due to a favorable anesthetic and safety profile is an alternative drug to lidocaine and mepivacaine for spinal anesthesia of intermediate or short duration. In comparison with plain solutions, hyperbaricity remarkably accelerates the onset and offset times of intrathecal 2% prilocaine. Literature suggests a dose ranging between 40 and 60 mg of prilocaine for lower extremities and lower abdominal procedures lasting up to 90 min, whereas a dose ranging from 10 to 30 mg is appropriate for perineal surgery. Readiness for discharge occurs in ~4 h from spinal administration.
PubMed: 28408851
DOI: 10.2147/LRA.S112756