Halili Hanieh, Azizkhani Reza, Tavakoli Garmaseh Saeid, Jafarpisheh Mohammad Saleh, Heydari Farhad, Masoumi Babak, Maghami Mehr Asieh
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Emergency Medicine Department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Nov 18;11(1):e106275. doi: 10.5812/aapm.106275. eCollection 2021 Feb.
Acute pain management is a core ethical commitment to medical practice. However, there is evidence to suggest that sometimes infiltrative lidocaine (IL) is not used prior to thoracentesis and abdominocentesis due to the belief that two needles cause greater pain than one. However, topical anesthetics like lidocaine-prilocaine cream (LPC) are painless, easy to use, and have less systemic side effects. Therefore, LPC can be a suitable substitute for medical procedures.
This study was designed to compare the analgesic effects of LPC with IL in thoracentesis and abdominocentesis.
Patients were divided into two study groups, including individuals seeing a physician for a thoracentesis (N = 36) and those seeing a physician for an abdominocentesis (N = 33). Patients were randomly assigned to the IL (N = 35) or LPC (N = 34) groups for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes. The IL group received 100 mg of 2% lidocaine 5 minutes prior to their procedure, whereas the LPC group received 2.5 g of lidocaine-prilocaine cream. The cream was spread over a 20 - 25 cm area and occluded with dressing plaster for 30 minutes prior to the procedure. In both study groups, the thoracentesis and abdominocentesis were ultrasound-guided.
The findings suggest a non-significant difference between overall pain perception in LPC and IL groups generally, as well as specifically in abdominocentesis and thoracentesis groups. Furthermore, the result remained the same after controlling for confounding variables. The number of attempts to perform successful abdominocentesis was significantly higher in the LPC than IL (P-value = 0.003) group but was not significant in the thoracentesis group (P-value = 0.131). The level of patient satisfaction in the LPC and IL groups were not significantly different (P-value > 0.05).
Overall, LPC appears to be an appropriate alternative to IL in reducing pain during thoracentesis and abdominocentesis, but it seemed to increase unsuccessful medical procedure attempts.
急性疼痛管理是医疗实践的一项核心伦理承诺。然而,有证据表明,有时在胸腔穿刺术和腹腔穿刺术前未使用浸润性利多卡因(IL),原因是认为两根针造成的疼痛比一根针更严重。然而,像利多卡因-丙胺卡因乳膏(LPC)这样的局部麻醉剂无痛、易于使用且全身副作用较小。因此,LPC可以作为医疗程序的合适替代物。
本研究旨在比较LPC与IL在胸腔穿刺术和腹腔穿刺术中的镇痛效果。
患者被分为两个研究组,包括因胸腔穿刺术就诊的个体(N = 36)和因腹腔穿刺术就诊的个体(N = 33)。为了诊断和/或治疗目的,患者被随机分配到IL组(N = 35)或LPC组(N = 34)。IL组在操作前5分钟接受100mg 2%的利多卡因,而LPC组接受2.5g利多卡因-丙胺卡因乳膏。乳膏涂抹在20 - 25cm的区域,并在操作前用敷料贴封闭30分钟。在两个研究组中,胸腔穿刺术和腹腔穿刺术均在超声引导下进行。
研究结果表明,LPC组和IL组总体上以及特别是在腹腔穿刺术和胸腔穿刺术组中的总体疼痛感知之间无显著差异。此外,在控制混杂变量后结果保持不变。LPC组成功进行腹腔穿刺术的尝试次数显著高于IL组(P值 = 0.003),但在胸腔穿刺术组中不显著(P值 = 0.131)。LPC组和IL组的患者满意度水平无显著差异(P值 > 0.05)。
总体而言,在胸腔穿刺术和腹腔穿刺术中,LPC似乎是IL减轻疼痛的合适替代物,但它似乎会增加医疗程序尝试失败的次数。