Samuel J. M. Hale, Olivia Lengyel, Deanna Louis, Raymond Kim, Richard G. Douglas
{"title":"The Anaesthetic Efficacy of Tetracaine and Oxymetazoline Compared With Co-Phenylcaine in Healthy Individuals","authors":"Samuel J. M. Hale, Olivia Lengyel, Deanna Louis, Raymond Kim, Richard G. Douglas","doi":"10.1111/coa.14223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Nasal anaesthetic-decongestant sprays are commonly used prior to nasal instrumentation, such as flexible and rigid nasal endoscopy. <i>Co-phenylcaine</i> (lignocaine 5%, phenylephrine 0.5%, ENT Technologies Pty Ltd., Melbourne, VIC, Australia) is a combination spray commonly used for this purpose. However, lignocaine is less potent than other local anaesthetics, and both active constituents of <i>Co-phenylcaine</i> have a bitter taste. It was hypothesised that a combination spray containing tetracaine and oxymetazoline would both offer more potent topical anaesthesia and have a better taste.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Four anaesthetic-decongestant nasal sprays were tested in 10 healthy participants (<i>Co-phenylcaine</i>, and tetracaine 0.5%, 1% and 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05%). Sensory thresholds were sequentially measured at the head of the inferior turbinate using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments over the following hour. Participants also rated taste on a Likert-style scale, and reported whether they experienced subjective numbness of the maxillary teeth.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A median peak sensory threshold of 60 g (the maximum tested) was observed with <i>Co-phenylcaine</i>, but this threshold was exceeded by all the tetracaine-based sprays. Tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05% had a significantly more rapid onset than <i>Co-phenylcaine</i> (4 min vs. 6 min, <i>p</i> < 0.05) and a longer duration of action. Eight participants reported dental numbness after administration of tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05%, but only one participant after <i>Co-phenylcaine.</i> Tetracaine-based sprays were generally perceived to taste less unpleasant than <i>Co-phenylcaine.</i>\n </p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05% is a more potent and rapidly acting anaesthetic-decongestant spray than <i>Co-phenylcaine</i>, with a longer duration of action.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":"50 1","pages":"46-52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/coa.14223","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coa.14223","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
Nasal anaesthetic-decongestant sprays are commonly used prior to nasal instrumentation, such as flexible and rigid nasal endoscopy. Co-phenylcaine (lignocaine 5%, phenylephrine 0.5%, ENT Technologies Pty Ltd., Melbourne, VIC, Australia) is a combination spray commonly used for this purpose. However, lignocaine is less potent than other local anaesthetics, and both active constituents of Co-phenylcaine have a bitter taste. It was hypothesised that a combination spray containing tetracaine and oxymetazoline would both offer more potent topical anaesthesia and have a better taste.
Methods
Four anaesthetic-decongestant nasal sprays were tested in 10 healthy participants (Co-phenylcaine, and tetracaine 0.5%, 1% and 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05%). Sensory thresholds were sequentially measured at the head of the inferior turbinate using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments over the following hour. Participants also rated taste on a Likert-style scale, and reported whether they experienced subjective numbness of the maxillary teeth.
Results
A median peak sensory threshold of 60 g (the maximum tested) was observed with Co-phenylcaine, but this threshold was exceeded by all the tetracaine-based sprays. Tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05% had a significantly more rapid onset than Co-phenylcaine (4 min vs. 6 min, p < 0.05) and a longer duration of action. Eight participants reported dental numbness after administration of tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05%, but only one participant after Co-phenylcaine. Tetracaine-based sprays were generally perceived to taste less unpleasant than Co-phenylcaine.
Conclusion
Tetracaine 2% with oxymetazoline 0.05% is a more potent and rapidly acting anaesthetic-decongestant spray than Co-phenylcaine, with a longer duration of action.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with:
current otorhinolaryngological practice
audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL
head and neck oncology
head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery
continuing medical education and ORL training
The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research.
Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject.
• Negative/null results
In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.