Nykanen D, Kissoon N, Rieder M, Armstrong R
Department of Pediatrics, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 1991 Feb;7(1):15-7. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199102000-00004.
We compared a eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine (EMLA, Astra Pharmaceuticals, Inc) with 1% lidocaine infiltration to determine the effect on wound healing in a prospective single blind study using the rat model. Thirty-six wounds were assessed. No clinical or histologic evidence of infection or necrosis was present in any wound. Five wounds (two in the lidocaine and three in the EMLA group, P = 1.0) demonstrated a widened scar owing to healing by secondary intention following suture disruption. There was no significant difference between groups in the degree of inflammation (P = 0.08). We conclude that EMLA does not affect wound healing adversely and is comparable to 1% lidocaine infiltration in the animal model. Further study to determine its anesthetic effect in laceration repair is presently being undertaken.
在一项前瞻性单盲研究中，我们使用大鼠模型，将利多卡因和丙胺卡因的共晶混合物（EMLA，阿斯特拉制药公司）与1%利多卡因浸润进行比较，以确定其对伤口愈合的影响。共评估了36处伤口。所有伤口均未出现感染或坏死的临床或组织学证据。5处伤口（利多卡因组2处，EMLA组3处，P = 1.0）因缝线断裂后二期愈合而出现瘢痕增宽。两组之间的炎症程度无显著差异（P = 0.08）。我们得出结论，在动物模型中，EMLA不会对伤口愈合产生不利影响，且与1%利多卡因浸润效果相当。目前正在进行进一步研究，以确定其在撕裂伤修复中的麻醉效果。
