-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion. • Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine) • Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl) • Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine) • N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine) • Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) • Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B). Based on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes. • Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group) • Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group) • Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group) • Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group) • Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08). Topical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD -1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI -1.47 to -0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea. We identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Pain; Spinal Puncture
PubMed: 37767875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015594.pub2 -
CJEM Jun 2023The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children.
STUDY DESIGN
We included trials of NO in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting NO or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% NO (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I = 0%) and 50% NO plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% NO was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, NO was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), NO was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), NO was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), NO was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), NO plus EMLA was "favorable" versus NO and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of NO included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with NO alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus NO plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and NO plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).
CONCLUSIONS
There is sufficient evidence to recommend NO plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Nitrous Oxide; Midazolam; Ketamine; Lacerations; Pain; Anesthetics, Local; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Oxygen
PubMed: 37171705
DOI: 10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0 -
Cureus Nov 2022Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure,... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of Emla (Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics) and Let (Lidocaine, Epinephrine, Tetracaine) for Topical Use in Wound Management for Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure, which may result in one of the most unpleasant and painful childhood experiences. The pain can be minimized through topical anesthesia, such as a combination of lidocaine, epinephrine, and tetracaine (LET) and a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA). The current study was carried out to demonstrate the efficacy of EMLA and LET in pediatric wound management. A thorough literature search was carried out without any time limitation on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant studies from these databases and their references were scoured for additional studies. Study quality appraisal and data analysis were conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). The literature search yielded 1651 articles of which only eight were eligible for inclusion in the present study. A meta-analysis of results from 3 studies showed that LET had a significant pain reduction than the control interventions (SMD: -0.46; 95% CI: -0.69, -0.23: p<0.0001). However, the pooled effect size of data from 3 studies showed EMLA had an insignificant difference with the control interventions (SMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.82, -0.24: p = 0.13). Similarly, no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions was reported in either EMLA (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.67, 7.93; p = 0.18) or LET (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.15, 6.50; p = 0.99) Our study suggests that the topical application of EMLA and LET effectively offers pain-free wound management among pediatric patients. However, the interventions are subject to adverse reactions that should be considered when managing the wounds.
PubMed: 36523723
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31447 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jun 2022Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different interventions in postoperative CRBD. The present review was performed to assess the efficacy of these interventions.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of different drugs for the prevention of postoperative CRBD. This review evaluated the incidence and severity of CRBD after different interventions at 0, 1, 2, and 6 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
Forty-five studies including 31 different drugs were analyzed. Eleven drugs were investigated in more than two RCTs, of which dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and pudendal nerve block (PNB) generally showed significantly higher efficacy than controls postoperatively. Solifenacin only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 0 h, and intravenous lidocaine only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 6 h. There were insufficient trials to draw conclusions regarding atropine, butylscopolamine, chlorpheniramine, clonidine, darifenacin, diphenhydramine, glycopyrrolate, intravesical bupivacaine, ketamine-haloperidol, pethidine-haloperidol, ketorolac, lidocaine-prilocaine cream, magnesium, hyoscine n-butyl bromide, oxycodone, paracetamol, parecoxib, trospium, resiniferatoxin, or amikacin. However, all but pethidine-haloperidol and chlorpheniramine showed some efficacy at various time points compared with controls.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and PNB are effective in preventing postoperative CRBD. Considering the efficacy and adverse effects of all drugs, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin were ranked best.
Topics: Chlorpheniramine; Dexmedetomidine; Gabapentin; Haloperidol; Humans; Ketamine; Lidocaine; Meperidine; Nefopam; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin; Tolterodine Tartrate; Tramadol; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters
PubMed: 35218404
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03251-5 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Dec 2022Forearm fractures in children often require closed reduction in the emergency setting. The choice of anaesthesia influences the degree of pain relief, which determines...
BACKGROUND
Forearm fractures in children often require closed reduction in the emergency setting. The choice of anaesthesia influences the degree of pain relief, which determines the success of reduction. Main methods of anaesthesia include procedural sedation and analgesia, haematoma block, intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) and regional nerve blocks. However, their comparative effectiveness is unclear. This study aims to synthesise peer-reviewed evidence and identify the most effective, in terms of pain reduction, and safest anaesthetic method.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 15 June 2021. Randomised controlled trials comparing anaesthetic methods for the closed reduction of paediatric forearm fractures in the emergency setting were included. Two reviewers independently screened, collected data and assessed the risk of bias for the selected outcomes. The primary outcome was pain during reduction. Secondary outcomes included pain after reduction, adverse effects, satisfaction, adequacy of sedation/anaesthesia, success of reduction and resource use.
RESULTS
1288 records were screened and 9 trials, which studied 936 patients in total, were included. Four trials compared the main methods of anaesthesia. Within the same method of anaesthesia, one compared administrative routes, one compared procedural techniques, one compared different drugs, one compared the use of adjuncts and one compared different doses of the same drug. One study found better pain outcomes with infraclavicular blocks compared with procedural sedation and analgesia. Lidocaine was superior in analgesic effect to prilocaine in IVRA in one study. One study found lower pain scores with moderate-dose than low-dose lidocaine in IVRA.
CONCLUSION
Few randomised controlled trials compared anaesthetic methods in the closed reduction of paediatric forearm fractures. High heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Overall, current data are insufficient to guide the choice of anaesthetic method in emergency settings. More adequately powered trials, conducted using standardised methods, are required.
Topics: Child; Humans; Forearm; Lidocaine; Nerve Block; Anesthetics; Fractures, Bone; Pain
PubMed: 35177437
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2021-212108 -
Turkish Journal of Urology Jul 2021Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive...
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others, pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results. We aimed to compare the use of local anesthetics and systemic analgesics from randomized controlled trials evaluating pain management during ESWL. A systematic search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol was performed in theMedline, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library databases. The bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous outcomes. A total of seven studies were obtained. The topical anesthesia used was eutectic mixture of local anesthetic cream and xylocaine gel. In contrast, the local injection anesthesia used was subcutaneous prilocaine and intracutaneous sterile water injection. The systemic analgesics used were intramuscular and oral forms of sodium diclofenac. There is no significant difference between the visual analogue scale results between the local and systemic groups (P> .05). The differences in ESWL frequency were also insignificant (P > .05). Additional analgesics supplementation (MD 8.44, 95% CI 2.28-14.61, P¼ .007) and the duration of the procedure (MD 1.39, 95% CI 0.21-2.56, P¼ .02) were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia in ESWL shows a similar degree of pain and frequency but has a shorter duration and fewer analgesics supplementation than systemic analgesics.
PubMed: 35118950
DOI: 10.5152/tju.2021.21143 -
PloS One 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases (updated March 2020) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of EMLA for patients that underwent ESWL. The search strategy and study selection process were managed according to the PRISMA statement. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the results indicated that EMLA significantly reduced pain compared to the control group (RR = -2.98, 95% CI = -5.82 to -0.13, P = 0.04) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 57% (P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis showed that EMLA did not significantly reduce pain when the patients took an analgesic premedication (RR = -1.46, 95% CI = -5.89 to 2.98, P = 0.52) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 38% (P = 0.52). Conversely, studies without premedication showed a significant pain relief effect (RR = -4.08, 95% CI = -7.36 to -0.65, P = -0.80) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 48% (P = 0.14). Most studies showed there was no difference in the patient's need for analgesics. EMLA was effective for reducing pain during EWSL. However, this analgesic effect was limited and did not reduce the need for analgesics.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Analgesia; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Combined; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Lithotripsy; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 33017397
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237783