Comparison of the onset, depth, and duration of cutaneous anesthesia between topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA creams: a randomized, intraindividual, comparative trial.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY Journal of Dermatological Treatment Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-14 DOI:10.1080/09546634.2022.2109566
Nichchanun Junputipong, Salinee Rojhirunsakool, Poonnapa Deewongkij, Nanticha Kamanamool, Montree Udompataikul
{"title":"Comparison of the onset, depth, and duration of cutaneous anesthesia between topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA creams: a randomized, intraindividual, comparative trial.","authors":"Nichchanun Junputipong,&nbsp;Salinee Rojhirunsakool,&nbsp;Poonnapa Deewongkij,&nbsp;Nanticha Kamanamool,&nbsp;Montree Udompataikul","doi":"10.1080/09546634.2022.2109566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) is an effective cutaneous anesthetic, although its application is time consuming and poses a risk of methemoglobinemia. Currently, the efficacy of topical 10% lidocaine cream is unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the onset, anesthesia depth, and duration of topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA cream.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The randomized, split-body, comparative trial performed on 40 participants who received a topical 10% lidocaine cream or EMLA on forearms for 15-150 min. Pain was stimulated using a 21-gauge needle insertion and evaluated with the Verbal Pain Score. Adverse effects were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EMLA conferred significantly better efficacy than 10% lidocaine (<i>p</i> < .001). For acceptable pain at 4-mm depth, the minimal application times were 40.88 and 45.38 min of EMLA and 10% lidocaine creams, respectively. With 60/120-min application, the maximal needle-insertion depths with acceptable pain were 6.61/9.47 mm (EMLA) and 6.01/8.94 mm (10% lidocaine). EMLA's anesthetic effect showed an early increase after removal which was sustained for 60-90 min. Both creams caused adverse effects, with EMLA showing higher proportions, although the differences were statistically insignificant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The efficacy of EMLA was superior to 10% lidocaine cream, especially regarding anesthesia onset and duration.</p>","PeriodicalId":15639,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dermatological Treatment","volume":" ","pages":"3047-3052"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dermatological Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2022.2109566","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) is an effective cutaneous anesthetic, although its application is time consuming and poses a risk of methemoglobinemia. Currently, the efficacy of topical 10% lidocaine cream is unclear.

Objective: To compare the onset, anesthesia depth, and duration of topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA cream.

Methods: The randomized, split-body, comparative trial performed on 40 participants who received a topical 10% lidocaine cream or EMLA on forearms for 15-150 min. Pain was stimulated using a 21-gauge needle insertion and evaluated with the Verbal Pain Score. Adverse effects were recorded.

Results: EMLA conferred significantly better efficacy than 10% lidocaine (p < .001). For acceptable pain at 4-mm depth, the minimal application times were 40.88 and 45.38 min of EMLA and 10% lidocaine creams, respectively. With 60/120-min application, the maximal needle-insertion depths with acceptable pain were 6.61/9.47 mm (EMLA) and 6.01/8.94 mm (10% lidocaine). EMLA's anesthetic effect showed an early increase after removal which was sustained for 60-90 min. Both creams caused adverse effects, with EMLA showing higher proportions, although the differences were statistically insignificant.

Conclusion: The efficacy of EMLA was superior to 10% lidocaine cream, especially regarding anesthesia onset and duration.

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
外用10%利多卡因和EMLA面霜的皮肤麻醉的开始、深度和持续时间的比较:一项随机、个体内的比较试验。
背景:局部麻醉剂共熔混合物(EMLA)是一种有效的皮肤麻醉剂,尽管其应用耗时且存在高铁血红蛋白血症的风险。目前,外用10%利多卡因乳膏的疗效尚不清楚。目的:比较10%利多卡因和EMLA乳膏的起效、麻醉深度和持续时间。方法:对40名参与者进行随机、分体、比较试验,这些参与者在前臂上局部使用10%利多卡因乳膏或EMLA 15-150分钟。用21号针刺刺激疼痛,并用言语疼痛评分进行评估。记录不良反应。结果:EMLA的麻醉效果明显优于10%利多卡因(p)。结论:EMLA的麻醉效果优于10%利多卡因乳膏,特别是在麻醉开始时间和麻醉持续时间上。
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
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
145
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Dermatological Treatment covers all aspects of the treatment of skin disease, including the use of topical and systematically administered drugs and other forms of therapy. The Journal of Dermatological Treatment is positioned to give dermatologists cutting edge information on new treatments in all areas of dermatology. It also publishes valuable clinical reviews and theoretical papers on dermatological treatments.
期刊最新文献
Boxed warnings for dermatologic JAK inhibitors: are they standardized worldwide? A review of biosimilars in psoriasis: impacts on efficacy, safety, access, and a first-hand look at biosimilar cost savings within the department of veterans affairs Postoperative risk assessment of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and the efficacy of delayed prevention following 532 nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser treatment of solar lentigines: a randomized controlled study. Biodegradable polymers and platelet-rich plasma causing visual impairment: a literature review. Exploring the effect of deucravacitinib in patients with palmoplantar pustular psoriasis.
×
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