Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics is not effective for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics for pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases (updated March 2020) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of EMLA for patients that underwent ESWL. The search strategy and study selection process were managed according to the PRISMA statement. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the results indicated that EMLA significantly reduced pain compared to the control group (RR = -2.98, 95% CI = -5.82 to -0.13, P = 0.04) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 57% (P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis showed that EMLA did not significantly reduce pain when the patients took an analgesic premedication (RR = -1.46, 95% CI = -5.89 to 2.98, P = 0.52) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 38% (P = 0.52). Conversely, studies without premedication showed a significant pain relief effect (RR = -4.08, 95% CI = -7.36 to -0.65, P = -0.80) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 48% (P = 0.14). Most studies showed there was no difference in the patient's need for analgesics. EMLA was effective for reducing pain during EWSL. However, this analgesic effect was limited and did not reduce the need for analgesics.

Efficacy of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetics on Pain Control During Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) for pain control in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of EMLA cream on pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Material/Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant randomized controlled trials that compared the pain control efficacies of EMLA vs. placebo.

Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: Randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of EMLA with placebo cream for patients underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Two review authors extracted data independently using a designed data extraction form and risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.

Results

Nine studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials with 1167 patients, were eligible. The EMLA group experienced less pain (mean difference, −0.47; 95% confidence interval, −0.78 to −0.16; p=0.003) and shorter duration of lithotripsy (mean difference, −1.70, 95% confidence interval: −2.31 to −1.10, p<0.0001) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in the number of patients who needed extra intravenous medication (p=0.610), number of patients with insufficient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy pain control (p=0.530), and number of patients with opioid adverse effects (p=0.320). Limitations: Long interval between the studies, different kinds of lithotripters.

Conclusions

EMLA can reduce pain during the ESWL procedure.

Efficacy of pethidine, ketorolac, and lidocaine gel as analgesics for pain control in shockwave lithotripsy: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial

Purpose

To compare the safety and efficacy of xylocaine gel and ketorolac as opioid-sparing analgesia compared with pethidine for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) pain.

Materials and Methods

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed in 132 patients with renal and upper ureteral stones amenable to treatment with SWL. The first patient group received intravenous (IV) pethidine and placebo gel; the second group received IV ketorolac plus placebo gel; the third group received lidocaine gel locally plus normal saline IV. Stone disintegration was classified as none (no change from basal by kidney, ureter, bladder X-ray or ultrasound [US] imaging), partial (fragmented and >4-mm residual fragments), and complete (≤4-mm residual fragments). Stone disintegration was assessed by kidney-ureter-bladder X-ray and US imaging. Pain was evaluated by use of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).

Results

The NPRS scores were highest in the xylocaine group at 10, 20, and 30 minutes (p=0.0001) with no significant difference between the ketorolac and pethidine groups, except at 10 minutes (p=0.03) and a near significant difference at 30 minutes (p=0.054) in favor of ketorolac. Results for stone disintegration (none, partial, and complete, respectively) were as follows: 25 (50.0%), 23 (46.0%), and 2 (4.0%) for pethidine; 19 (35.8%), 23 (43.4%), and 11 (20.8%) for ketorolac; and 26 (89.7%), 3 (10.3%), and 0 (0.0%) for lidocaine (p=0.008).

Conclusions

Ketorolac is a safe and more effective alternative to morphine derivatives for SWL analgesia. Lidocaine gel should not be used as mono-analgesia for SWL.

The Effect of EMLA Cream on Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Remifentanil in ESWL Procedure: A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

To alleviate stinging pain in the skin entry area and visceral discomfort in patients who are undergoing ESWL.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of the EMLA cream in combination with remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing ESWL treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty patients were divided into two double-blind randomized groups. Those in the first group were administered 3-5mm of EMLA 5% cream on a marked area; the second group received, as a placebo, a cream with no analgesic effect in the same amount. All patients were administered a remifentanil bolus with a PCA device. Arterial blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were recorded throughout the procedure; postoperative side effects, agitation, and respiratory depression were measured after. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were taken preoperatively, perioperatively, directly postoperatively, and 60 minutes subsequent to finishing the procedure.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of PCA demands and delivered boluses or among perioperative VAS. No significant side effects were noted. Patient satisfaction was recorded high in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EMLA cream offered no advantage over the placebo cream in patients undergoing ESWL with remifentanil PCA.

Drugs for pain management in shock wave lithotripsy

Objective. With this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the main aspects and currently used drugs for analgesia in shockwave lithotripsy. Evidence Acquisition. We reviewed current literature, concentrating on newer articles and high-quality reviews in international journals. Results. No standardized protocols for pain control in SWL exist, although it is crucial for treatment outcome. General and spinal anaesthesia show excellent pain control but are only recommended for selected cases. The newer opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are able to deliver good analgesia. Interest in inhalation anaesthesia with nitrous oxide, local anaesthesia with deep infiltration of the tissue, and dermal anaesthesia with EMLA or DMSO has recently rekindled, showing good results in terms of pain control and a favourable side effect profile. Tamsulosin and paracetamol are further well-known drugs being currently investigated. Conclusion. Apart from classically used drugs like opioids and NSARs, medicaments like nitrous oxide, paracetamol, DMSA, or refined administration techniques for infiltration anaesthesia show a good effectiveness in pain control for SWL.

Analgesia for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Current status

Purpose of Review

A cooperative patient is essential in maintaining stone targeting for optimal fragmentation during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Therefore, it is important to choose an appropriate analgesic with minimal adverse effects. The guidelines for pain management during ESWL have not been established.

Current Status

Various analgesic agents including opioids (morphine, pethidine, and fentanyl), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS - diclofenac, propofol, ketorolac, and piroxicam), local anesthetic agents and a number of combinations have been used during ESWL by various techniques (general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, subcutaneous and intravenous injections, patient-controlled analgesia, and monitored anesthesia care). Cutaneous creams like eutectic mixture of local anesthesia (EMLA) whether used alone or in combination with oral NSAIDS have also been used and are able to reduce analgesic requirements. Topical application of a combination of dimethyl sulfoxide and lidocaine has also been found to be effective.

Conclusion

The ideal analgesic, offering optimal pain control, minimal side effects, and cost-effectiveness is still elusive. Opioids administered using various techniques, provide effective analgesia, but require active monitoring of patient for potential adverse effects. Combination therapy (oral NSAID and occlusive dressing of EMLA, DMSO with lidocaine) offers an effective alternative mode for achieving analgesia with minimal morbidity. This therapy avoids the need for general anesthesia, injectable analgesics, and opioids along with their side effects.

Efficacy of local subcutaneous anesthesia versus intramuscular opioid sedation in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: a randomized study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of local subcutaneous (SC) anesthesia compared with intramuscular (IM) opioid sedation during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in a randomized study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After informed consent was obtained, 125 patients with urolithiasis who were scheduled for SWL were included in the study. The patients in each treatment session were randomized to receive either IM meperidine (group A) or SC infiltration of 10 mL 2% lidocaine and 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine at the area of shockwave entry (group B). Degree of pain was rated by the patient using a five-point visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The study included 88 (70.4%) men and 37 (29.6%) women with a mean age of 47.6 ± 12.5 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.16 ± 4.67 kg/m2. Of the patients, 89, 26, and 10 received a single, two, or more than two treatment sessions, respectively (176 sessions). Maximum stone length was 10.68 ± 5.12 mm. Pretreatment stent placement was performed in 17 (13.6%) patients (28 sessions). Group A comprised 89 treatment sessions while 87 were involved in group B. Both groups were similar. Supplemental intrvenous sedation was needed in two (2.5%) and four (4.6%) sessions in groups A and B, respectively. VAS was not different between both groups (P = 0.063). Patients with pretreatment stent placement had significantly lower VAS score compared with patients without stents (P = 0.012). Sex and BMI had no impact on the VAS score.

CONCLUSIONS

Local SC anesthesia alone is effective for analgesic purposes during extracorporeal SWL. Sex, age, and BMI have no relation to analgesia requirement.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs vs. opioids for SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters

PURPOSE

Clinical studies produce conflicting results on pain relief for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in pain relief for SWL powered by an electromagnetic generator.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed and all randomized controlled trials comparing NSAIDs and opioids in pain relief for SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters were included in the analysis. Data from 3 trials (244 patients) were pooled. The primary outcome measure was adequate analgesia, defined as "if no additional pain relief was used". The difference in the proportion of patients with adequate anesthesia was compared between the NSAIDs and opioids groups as an odds ratio and odds ratio were pooled across the 3 trials with a fixed effects model.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between using NSAIDs and opioids for pain relief during SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters (odds ratio 0.886, 95% CI 0.446-1,760, p = 0.730).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that in relieving pain during SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters NSAIDs are as effective as opioids.

Analgesia during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: fentanyl citrate versus parecoxib sodium

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shockwave-induced pain may become an important issue during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), although the new generation of lithotriptors generally produces less pain than previous models. The aim of the study was to compare the analgesic effect of a cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor (parecoxib sodium) with that of our standard method of analgesia (fentanyl citrate) in patients who needed pain relief when undergoing SWL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight patients who were undergoing SWL for renal calculi were randomized to receive intravenously either fentanyl citrate (group A, n = 30) or parecoxib sodium (group B, n = 28) when they felt that their pain during the session became intolerable. Lithotripsy was recommenced 10 minutes after administration of analgesia. The severity of pain before and after administration of the analgesic regimens was evaluated using a five-level verbal scale. The effectiveness of each drug was evaluated with respect to degree of pain relief and ensuing tolerance of the procedure to completion, as well as the need for supplementary analgesia (half the standard dose of fentanyl citrate).

RESULTS

The patients in the two groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, body mass index, and stone size. There was no statistically significant difference in the maximum energy level achieved as well as in the total number of shock waves given in the two groups. Administration of fentanyl citrate resulted in alleviation of pain and completion of SWL in 27 patients (90%), whereas parecoxib sodium was effective in five patients (17.8%) (P < 0.01). The remaining 23 patients in group B received supplementary analgesia, and 22 completed the lithotripsy session.

CONCLUSIONS

Parecoxib sodium was not as effective as fentanyl citrate in alleviating pain during SWL. Its use, however, may lower the dose of opioid-based analgesia in this group of patients.

The analgesic effect of inhalational Entonox for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive procedure that allows urinary stones to be fragmented using acoustic shock waves. The impact of the shock waves causes transient stinging pain at the entry site as well as deep visceral discomfort, requiring analgesia during the procedure. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Entonox and pethidine for pain relief during outpatient ESWL. We randomized 150 outpatients undergoing elective ESWL into three groups of 50 patients, each group receiving inhalational Entonox, intravenous pethidine, or inhalational compressed air during ESWL. Quantitative evaluation of pain was performed according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), before and after the intervention. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t tests were used to compare VAS scores in the three groups, before and after the intervention. Entonox and pethidine decreased the pain score significantly, while compressed air did not. There was no significant difference between pain relief by Entonox and pethidine. This study demonstrates for the first time that inhalational Entonox is an effective analgesic regimen for ESWL. Entonox can be regarded as an appropriate alternative to analgesics like opioids in relieving pain during ESWL.

Comparison of Three Analgesic Regimens for Pain Control during Shockwave Lithotripsy Using Dornier Delta Compact Lithotripter: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of oral diclofenac, topical eutectic mixture of local anesthesia (EMLA), and their combination for pain control during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and to investigate the need for supplemental analgesia, patient satisfaction, and overall treatment outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 240 consecutive patients with urolithiasis scheduled for SWL between May 2006 and December 2006 were randomized equally into three groups that were treated as follows: group A oral (tablet) diclofenac sodium 60 minutes prior to SWL (50 mg for body weight <70 kg; 100 mg for body weight >70 kg); group B occlusive dressing of EMLA (5 g) 60 minutes prior to SWL; group C combination of oral diclofenac sodium (in the prescribed dose) and occlusive dressing of EMLA (5 g) 60 minutes prior to SWL. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for the subjective evaluation of pain. The various parameters were recorded and analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

The total number of shock waves delivered, the maximum voltage used, and SWL duration were statistically greater in group C (P < 0.0001). The VAS scores at 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 minutes and the supplemental analgesia requirement were statistically less in group C (P < 0.0001). The stone fragmentation rate, stone-free rate at 3 months (88.75%), and modified Efficiency Quotient (0.64) were statistically greater in group C (P < 0.0001). The post-SWL auxiliary procedure rate (P < 0.0001) and Steinstrasse rate (P = 0.03) were statistically less in group C.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a combination of oral diclofenac sodium and an occlusive dressing of EMLA cream during SWL provides adequate analgesia with minimal morbidity, avoids the need for parenteral analgesics and their attendant side effects, and improves the success rate of SWL.

Auricular acupressure as a treatment for anxiety before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the elderly

PURPOSE

Auricular acupuncture at the relaxation point has been shown to be effective treatment for anxiety. We hypothesized that auricular acupressure may decrease anxiety in elderly individuals who are transported by ambulance before receiving ESWL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 100 patients with renal calculi who were transported to the local hospital by special ambulance, accompanied by 2 paramedics. Paramedic 1 performed data collection, while paramedic 2 performed auricular acupressure in patients randomly assigned to a relaxation group and a sham treated group. Anxiety was measured using a visual analog scale score on a scale of 0 to 100 mm.

RESULTS

Each group consisted of 50 patients with similar demographic characteristics. The relaxation group had significantly decreased anxiety scores upon arrival at the hospital and lower anticipation of pain scores (mean+/-SD 57.6+/-21.8 to 15.4+/-9.8 and 35.7+/-29.7 to 9.5+/-4.1 mm VAS) than the sham treated group (55.5+/-25.9 to 49.8+/-28.9 and 37.7+/-24.1 to 33.8+/-25.2 mm VAS, respectively, 2-way repeated measure ANOVA each p=0.001). Estimated waiting times for treatment did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (5.0+/-2.5 and 5.5+/-2.95, respectively, repeated measures ANOVA p=0.83). The Post-Intervention Anxiety visual analog scale demonstrated the significant superiority of the true treatment group (19.5+/-5.9 and 66.8+/-27.9 mm VAS, respectively, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients who received auricular acupressure at specific relaxation points while being transported to the hospital were less anxious, anticipated less pain and were more optimistic about the outcome of treatment that they will receive than the sham treated group. These data prove that this is an effective treatment for anxiety that improves the patient overall perception of ESWL.

Effectiveness of electro-acupuncture compared to sedo-analgesics in relieving pain during shockwave lithotripsy

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of electro-acupuncture (EA) with the combination of tramadol+midazolam (TM) for pain relief during outpatient extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). A total of 35 patients (20 men, 15 women) with stones located in the pelvicalyceal system of the kidney were randomized prospectively to undergo lithotripsy with a third generation lithotriptor (Stone Lith, smart PCK) after receiving either EA (n=17) or TM (n=18) for sedation and analgesia. EA treatment was applied to patients by the same licensed acupuncturist 30 min prior to ESWL in group EA. Tramadol (1.5 mg/kg) 30 min before the start of lithotripsy and midazolam (0.06 mg/kg) 5 min prior to ESWL were given as a sedo-analgesic intravenously to group TM. During ESWL, blood pressure, heart rate, pain and sedation levels were measured at baseline and every 15 min thereafter. The pain intensity perceived during lithotripsy was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). There was no statistical differences in the diameters of the stones and age of the patients between groups (P=0.590; P=0.568, respectively). In the EA group, the median of maximum energy level achieved was 16.0 kV (range 10-23 kV), while it was 18.0 kV (range 10-20 kV) in the TM group. There was no statistically significant difference between the maximum energy levels applied to the patients during ESWL (P=0.613). The median numbers of shockwaves were 2,114 (range 1,100-3,800) and 2,200 (range 1,500-3,200) in the EA and TM groups, respectively. In the TM group, the numbers of shockwaves used were higher than in group EA during ESWL. However, this difference was not significant (P=0.732). VAS scores were consistently lower in the EA group compared with the TM group throughout the ESWL procedure. The median VAS score was 5.0 (range 1-10) in the EA group while it was 8.0 (range 2-10) in the TM group. The patients who underwent EA had lower median scores of VAS than patients who took only conservative treatment, but this difference was not significant (P=0.245). When both groups were compared for stone-free rates, no significant difference was found [82.3% (14/17) for group EA, 88.8% (16/18) for group TM] (P=0.658). Durations of ESWL procedures were similar in both groups [median 27.4 min (range 15.7-34.3) in group EA vs 27.1 min (range 16.1-33.6) in group TM] (P=0.517). No side effects was seen in any patient who received EA. Side effects such as mild orthostatic hypotension and dizziness occurred in patients given sedo-analgesia, but these were not severe enough to require any patient to be excluded from the study. Our study shows that EA is an effective method for inducing sedation with analgesia without any demonstrable side effects.

Effectiveness of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetic Cream and Occlusive Dressing with Low Dosage of Fentanyl for Pain Control during Shockwave Lithotripsy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To investigate the effect and usefulness of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetic (EMLA) applied with an occlusive dressing and used simultaneously with a low dose of fentanyl during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred sixty patients with kidney stones, aged between 19 and 68 years, were randomly divided into seven groups that were treated as follows: group 1: fentanyl 1 microg/kg by intravenous infusion (IV); group 2: IV fentanyl 0.25 microg/kg; group 3: occlusive dressing and IV fentanyl 0.25 microg/kg; group 4: placebo cream and IV fentanyl 0.25 microg/kg; group 5: EMLA cream and IV fentanyl 0.25 microg/kg; group 6: placebo cream and IV fentanyl 0.25 microg/kg with an occlusive dressing; and group 7: EMLA cream and IV fentanyl 0.25 microg/kg with an occlusive dressing. The mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, ventilatory rate, and oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) were recorded on all patients. A visual analog scale 0-100 mm (VAS) was used for the evaluation of pain. The skin integrity was inspected to detect any lesions after SWL.

RESULTS

The SpO(2) in group 1 was lower statistically than in the other groups. The VAS score in group 7 was clearly lower than in the others in the first, tenth, and twentieth minutes and at the end of SWL. In groups 6 and 7, additional fentanyl doses were lower than in the other groups, but only in group 7 was the total fentanyl dosage low. Skin lesions were not seen only in groups 3, 6, and 7.

CONCLUSION

Use of EMLA and an occlusive dressing with low doses of fentanyl during SWL provides appropriate analgesia with minimal morbidity.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy

This article reviews the basic anesthetic considerations for ESWL and PCNL. General principles governing the operation of lithotripters, elements of treatment that impinge on safety, and effective intraoperative anesthesia and complications that may be encountered in the perioperative period are discussed. Factors influencing blood loss and concerns arising from positioning patients prone are addressed in the sections devoted to PCNL.

Petroleum jelly is an ideal contact medium for pain reduction and successful treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

PURPOSE

Various minimally invasive approaches to reduce pain during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) have been described. We compared petroleum jelly (Vaselinet) and ultrasound gel in vitro as a contact medium based on the stone fragmentation rate. The analgesic effect of cutaneous petroleum jelly was tested against eutectic mixture of local anesthesia. We also evaluated the outcome of ESWL in a large group of patients treated with petroleum jelly.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In vitro 3 artificial stones were completely fragmented with a MFL 5000* lithotriptor using petroleum jelly or ultrasound gel as a contact medium. A total of 110 patients (group 1) received petroleum jelly before treatment with the same lithotriptor. After retrospective analysis of group 1 we matched 32 patients (group 2) receiving cutaneous eutectic mixture of local anesthesia. Because of the favorable results with petroleum jelly, we used it in another 148 patients, for a total of 258 patients (group V). Treatment dependent pain was scored using a questionnaire as 1--no, 2--minor, 3--tolerable and 4--intolerable. ESWL without additional analgesics had a pain score of 1 to 3.

RESULTS

In vitro petroleum jelly had a superior fragmentation rate compared to ultrasound gel. Our long-term experience with the lithotriptor indicated that only 30% of patients required no additional analgesics with cutaneous ultrasound gel. In contrast, no additional analgesics were needed in only 38% of group 2 compared to 81.8% of group V. The stone fragmentation rate did not differ statistically between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cutaneous petroleum jelly offers a noninvasive, highly effective, inexpensive treatment modality with no side effects and significant reduction in pain. This ointment is our contact medium of choice.