4.4 Article

Effectiveness of a topical local anaesthetic spray as analgesia for dressing changes: A double-blinded randomised pilot trial comparing an emulsion with an aqueous lidocaine formulation

期刊

BURNS
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 106-112

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2013.05.013

关键词

Local anaesthetic formulation; Lidocaine; Lidocaine spray; Emulsion; Burns; Burn pain; Skin graft wound; Partial thickness skin graft; Donor site dressing change

资金

  1. NS Technologies Pty Ltd.
  2. ChemCentre, Ing.
  3. Erich Pfeiffer GmbH
  4. Clinical Trial Pharmacy
  5. PathWest Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Partial thickness skin graft wounds are painful. Topically applied lidocaine has been used for analgesia in several clinical trials. This study compared the effectiveness of two different formulations of topical local anaesthetic for dressing changes of partial thickness skin graft donor sites. Methods: A double-blind randomised controlled, pilot trial was conducted in: 29 patients undergoing split thickness skin graft surgery. Subjects were randomised to either a 3% lidocaine emulsion formulation Treatment E (NOPAYNE (TM)) or a 4% aqueous solution Treatment A (Xylocaine (TM)). Subjects received one spray per 3 cm(2) of donor site area followed by up to two further spays as required. Endpoints included pain intensity measured by the numerical rating scale (NRS) up to 1 h after dressing change commencement, sting sensation, overall satisfaction and lidocaine plasma concentration. Results: The 60 min pain scores for E and A were 1.3 +/- 0.3 (mean SEM) and 1.8 +/- 0.4 (p = 0.98) respectively. Nearly 90% of patients were very satisfied with their treatment. The mean plasma concentrations of lidocaine for A and E were 0.132 mg/l and 0.040 mg/l respectively (p = 0.069). Conclusion: The topical local anaesthetic formulations achieved low pain scores during dressing changes. The safety profile was potentially improved with the emulsion formulation of lidocaine. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据