The use of topical nasal anaesthesia before flexible nasendoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing cophenylcaine with placebo.

A J Cain, D P Murray, L G McClymont
{"title":"The use of topical nasal anaesthesia before flexible nasendoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing cophenylcaine with placebo.","authors":"A J Cain,&nbsp;D P Murray,&nbsp;L G McClymont","doi":"10.1046/j.1365-2273.2002.00608.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective was to evaluate the necessity to use topical nasal anaesthesia before flexible nasendoscopy and to compare its use with placebo. The study was carried out using a double-blind randomized controlled trial, with three treatment arms, at the out-patient department at Raigmore Hospital, Inverness. The participants were 90 patients attending the otolaryngology out-patient department who required flexible nasendoscopy as part of their assessment. Each participant was randomized to one of three groups. Group 1 received cophenylcaine spray, group 2 received a placebo spray, and group 3 received no nasal preparation. Flexible nasendoscopy was carried out via a stated protocol and the patient's diagnosis and findings were discussed in the usual way. After the consultation, the patient filled in a questionnaire marking answers on a visual analogue scale. The main outcome measures were pain and overall unpleasantness of procedure. Patient anxiety and willingness to be examined again in the same way if necessary were also assessed. Ease of examination and quality of view were asked from the operator's perspective. The mean scores on a visual analogue scale showed the main outcome measures to be as follows. Pain score measured 1.7 for cophenylcaine, 2.1 for no spray and 2.2 for placebo. Overall unpleasantness scores were 2.0 for cophenylcaine, 1.9 for no spray and 2.4 for placebo. On a visual analogue scale of 0-10, none of these mean main outcome measures reached levels of significance. It was concluded that the use of cophenylcaine spray before flexible nasendoscopy does not give significant advantages over the use of no nasal preparation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10694,"journal":{"name":"Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences","volume":"27 6","pages":"485-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2002.00608.x","citationCount":"39","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2002.00608.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the necessity to use topical nasal anaesthesia before flexible nasendoscopy and to compare its use with placebo. The study was carried out using a double-blind randomized controlled trial, with three treatment arms, at the out-patient department at Raigmore Hospital, Inverness. The participants were 90 patients attending the otolaryngology out-patient department who required flexible nasendoscopy as part of their assessment. Each participant was randomized to one of three groups. Group 1 received cophenylcaine spray, group 2 received a placebo spray, and group 3 received no nasal preparation. Flexible nasendoscopy was carried out via a stated protocol and the patient's diagnosis and findings were discussed in the usual way. After the consultation, the patient filled in a questionnaire marking answers on a visual analogue scale. The main outcome measures were pain and overall unpleasantness of procedure. Patient anxiety and willingness to be examined again in the same way if necessary were also assessed. Ease of examination and quality of view were asked from the operator's perspective. The mean scores on a visual analogue scale showed the main outcome measures to be as follows. Pain score measured 1.7 for cophenylcaine, 2.1 for no spray and 2.2 for placebo. Overall unpleasantness scores were 2.0 for cophenylcaine, 1.9 for no spray and 2.4 for placebo. On a visual analogue scale of 0-10, none of these mean main outcome measures reached levels of significance. It was concluded that the use of cophenylcaine spray before flexible nasendoscopy does not give significant advantages over the use of no nasal preparation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
柔性鼻内窥镜检查前使用局部鼻麻醉:一项双盲、随机对照试验,比较酚卡因和安慰剂。
目的是评估在软性鼻内窥镜检查前使用局部鼻麻醉的必要性,并将其与安慰剂的使用进行比较。该研究采用双盲随机对照试验,有三个治疗组,在因弗内斯Raigmore医院的门诊部进行。参与者是参加耳鼻喉科门诊的90名患者,他们需要灵活的鼻内窥镜检查作为他们评估的一部分。每个参与者被随机分为三组。组1使用苯基卡因喷雾剂,组2使用安慰剂喷雾剂,组3不使用鼻腔制剂。柔性鼻内窥镜检查通过规定的方案进行,并以通常的方式讨论患者的诊断和发现。会诊后,患者填写了一份问卷,在视觉模拟量表上给出答案。主要观察指标为疼痛和手术过程的总体不愉快程度。病人的焦虑和在必要时以同样的方式再次检查的意愿也被评估。从操作人员的角度对检查的便利性和观察的质量进行了询问。视觉模拟量表的平均得分显示主要结果测量如下。苯基卡因组疼痛评分为1.7分,无喷雾剂组为2.1分,安慰剂组为2.2分。总的来说,苯基卡因组的不愉快评分为2.0,无喷雾剂组为1.9,安慰剂组为2.4。在0-10的视觉模拟量表上,这些平均主要结果测量值均未达到显著水平。结论:在柔性鼻内镜检查前使用苯基卡因喷雾剂并不比不使用鼻制剂有明显的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Integrity in medical research and publication. The Epley manoeuvre for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo--a systematic review. Combating bacterial resistance in otorhinolaryngology. 11Beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 1 expression in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Sudden deafness: long-term follow-up and recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1