Comparison of topical anesthetics with lidocaine infiltration during laceration repair in children

Topical anaesthetics for pain control during repair of dermal laceration

BACKGROUND

Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned because of concern about adverse effects, thus novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed. This review was originally published in 2011 and has been updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether benefits of non-invasive topical anaesthetic application occur at the expense of decreased analgesic efficacy. To compare the efficacy of various single-component or multi-component topical anaesthetic agents for repair of dermal lacerations. To determine the clinical necessity for topical application of the ester anaesthetic, cocaine.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 2010 to December 2016), Embase (2010 to December 2016) and MEDLINE (2010 to December 2016). We did not limit this search by language or format of publication. We contacted manufacturers, international scientific societies and researchers in the field. Weemailed selected journalsand reviewed meta-registers of ongoing trials. For the previous version of this review, we searched these databases to November 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration in adult and paediatric participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information when needed. We collected adverse event information from trial reports. We assessed methodological risk of bias for each included study and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The present updated review included 25 RCTs involving 3278 participants. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data for all but one outcome: pain intensity. In two pooled studies, the mean self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) score for topical prilocaine-phenylephrine (PP) was higher than the mean self-reported VAS (0 to 100 mm) score for topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine (TAC) by 5.59 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16 to 13.35). Most trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics were at high risk of bias, which is likely to have affected their results. Researchers found that several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics provided effective analgesic efficacy. However, data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent are based mostly on single comparisons in trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one of 1042 participants who had undergone application of TAC. Investigators reported no serious complications among any of the participants treated with cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have found two new studies published since the last version of this review was prepared. We have added these studies to those previously included and have conducted an updated analysis, which resulted in the same review conclusions as were presented previously.Mostly descriptive analysis indicates that topical anaesthetics may offer an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. Use of cocaine-based topical anaesthetics might be hard to justify, given the availability of other effective topical anaesthetics without cocaine. However, the overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.

Topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration

BACKGROUND

Topical local anaesthetics are recognized as providing effective analgesia for numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned due to concern about adverse effects, and so novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of infiltrated local anaesthetics with those of topical local anaesthetics for repair of dermal lacerations and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various single or multi-component topical anaesthetics to identify cocaine-free topically applied local anaesthetics that may provide equivalent analgesia to those containing cocaine.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 10); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2010); EMBASE (1980 to November 2010); CINAHL (1982 to November 2010); and reference lists of articles. We also handsearched selected journals, reviewed abstracts presented at international society meetings, reviewed metaregisters of ongoing trials and contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of torn skin in adult and paediatric patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse event information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs involving 3128 patients. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data in all but one outcome, pain scores using a visual analogue scale. The majority of trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics are at high risk of bias, which is likely to affect the interpretation of the results. Several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics were found to provide effective analgesic efficacy. However, the data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent is mostly based upon single comparisons, in trials that have unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one case after application of topical tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine (TAC) where a total of 1042 patients were exposed. No serious complications were reported in any of the patients treated with either cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly descriptive analysis, topical anaesthetics are possibly an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia prior to suturing of dermal lacerations. However, additional well designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be made.

The use of topical anaesthesia during repair of minor lacerations in Departments of Emergency Medicine: a literature review

BACKGROUND

There are currently a number of different methods available to obtain anaesthesia in minor dermatological procedures. Although intradermal infiltration of 1% lidocaine is the favoured method for anaesthesia induction in laceration repair, it can cause significant pain in itself. Topical anaesthesia has been investigated as an alternative to infiltration anaesthesia, with the majority of studies looking at preparations of either TAC (tetracaine, adrenaline and cocaine) or LAT (lidocaine, adrenaline and tetracaine).

METHODS

A computerised search of the literature was undertaken, using Medline, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library, to identify studies of interest to this review. Reference lists were examined for further relevant papers.

AIMS

This paper aims to provide an overview of the use of topical anaesthetics, in laceration repair, in Emergency Medicine (EM) departments.

CONCLUSION

The literature has shown that the induction of anaesthesia in lacerations has remained largely unchanged over the past few years, with lidocaine infiltration still the preferred method. Many reasons have been put forward as to why topical anaesthetics are not commonly used in the UK. Perhaps it would be beneficial to carry out work in relation to alternative formulations as opposed to overcoming the difficulties associated with formulations that are already available.

Etomidate Versus Midazolam for Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Outpatients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Midazolam is widely used for procedural sedation and analgesia. Etomidate has been studied mostly in adults. Our objective is to compare the efficacy of etomidate and midazolam for achieving procedural sedation and analgesia in children.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, emergency department and orthopedic clinic-based trial was carried out among patients aged 2 to 18 years with displaced extremity fractures. Patients were administered 1 microg/kg of fentanyl and either 0.2 mg/kg of etomidate or 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam. Adequate sedation was defined, for the purpose of this study, as a score of 4 or more on the Ramsay Sedation Scale. The primary outcome was induction and recovery time. The rates of adverse events, success of fracture reduction, and parent and physician satisfaction were also compared.

RESULTS

From April to August 2004, 100 of 128 eligible patients were enrolled (age 8.7+/-3.7 years; 50% male patients). A higher proportion of patients attained adequate sedation among those who received etomidate: 46 of 50 (92%) versus 18 of 50 (36%) (delta 56%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 38% to 69%). Time taken for induction (hazard ratio 4.9; 95% CI 2.2 to 10.9) and time taken for recovery (hazard ratio 2.8; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.1) were lower among patients who received etomidate. The rates of adverse events were similar in both groups, except for myoclonus and pain at the injection site, which was more frequent in the etomidate group.

CONCLUSION

Induction and recovery times are shorter with etomidate compared with midazolam. At the dosages used for procedural sedation and analgesia among children with displaced extremity fracture, etomidate has higher efficacy in comparison with midazolam.

Comparative efficacy and costs of various topical anesthetics for repair of dermal lacerations: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of infiltrated local anesthesia with topical anesthesia for repair of dermal laceration, to analyze the efficacy of single or multicomponent topical anesthetics, and to identify topical formulations that are potentially less costly and equally efficacious as cocaine-containing topical anesthetics.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital.

PATIENTS

Pediatric and adult subjects.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials that randomized more than 3000 patients were identified. The majority of studies demonstrated equivalent or superior analgesic efficacy for topical formulations compared with conventional intradermal infiltration. We found that cocaine is not a mandatory component of topical anesthesia. The literature discloses no significant difference in anesthetic efficacy between topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine and each of the following 6 cocaine-free formulations: lidocaine-epinephrine-tetracaine, lidocaine-epinephrine, tetracaine-phenylephrine, tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine, bupivicaine-norepinephrine, or prilocaine-phenylephrine.

CONCLUSION

Topical anesthetics are an efficacious, noninvasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. The use of cocaine-containing topical anesthetics can no longer be justified in light of its high cost and potential adverse effects. We have summarized the evidence, mostly favorable, supporting the use of various non-cocaine-containing topical anesthetics.

Topical adrenaline and cocaine gel for anaesthetising children's lacerations. An audit of acceptability and safety

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the acceptability of a gel solution of adrenaline (epinephrine) (1 in 2000) and cocaine (5%) for anaesthetising children's facial lacerations to the child, parent, and operator. (2) To assess the safety of the current protocol.

SETTING

The emergency unit of a large university hospital.

METHODS

All patients who were treated with topical adrenaline and cocaine (topAC) gel over a six month period were entered into a prospective audit (n = 75). Patient details, the nature and cause of the injury, and any treatment carried out were all recorded. The acceptability to children over 3 years of age, was assessed by the use of the Wong Baker face scale, in which 0 represents "no hurt" and 5 represents "hurts worst". The acceptability to both the parent and the operator was assessed by the use of a 0 to 9 Likert scale, where 0 represented "very acceptable" and 9 represented "not at all" acceptable.

RESULTS

(1) Children aged 3 years or older graded their pain during the procedure as having a mean value of 1.17 on the Wong Baker (0 to 5) scale. Parents graded acceptability on the Likert scale (0 to 9) with a mean score of 1.13. Operators using the same grading system, recorded a mean score of 1.75. (2) No toxic side effects were seen but the protocol was updated in line with evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical adrenaline and cocaine is an effective anaesthetic for suturing children's facial lacerations and is acceptable to child, parent, and operator alike.

Pediatric pain measurement using a visual analogue scale: a comparison of two teaching methods

The goals of this study were to evaluate the validity of the visual analogue scale (VAS) for young children and to compare a newly developed method of teaching children to use a VAS with one used in our previous studies. It was hypothesized that the new method would increase the number of children who understand the VAS and correctly mark their responses on the VAS line. The association between child's age and ability to understand the VAS was also evaluated. One hundred-six children with a laceration requiring sutures and receiving a lidocaine injection for local anesthesia participated in the study. They ranged in age from 5 to 14 years. Two outcome measures were used to assess the baseline and lidocaine injection pain: a 5-point Likert scale and a VAS. A calibration study was used to determine whether the subjects were able to use the VAS to make proportional judgments about their perceptions. Teaching method had no effect on the number of subjects who could correctly mark their responses on the VAS line, nor did it significantly increase the number of subjects who could understand the concept of the VAS. Subjects who were able to understand the VAS were significantly older (mean = 9.8 years, SD = 2.8) than those who did not (mean = 8.2 years, SD = 2.5). Overall, only about one third of the subjects were able to correctly mark the VAS and understand the concept of the VAS. Other measures of pain that are better understood by young children may be more valid indicators of pain than the VAS.

The management of pain in the emergency department

The challenge for emergency medicine physicians in the new millennium is to use these drugs and drug combinations to make ED visits pain-free and safe experiences. With dedication to research, a willingness to take the time to explore new options, and expansion of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, physicians can make this lofty dream a reality.

Tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine topical anesthesia compared with lidocaine infiltration during repair of mucous membrane lacerations in children

This study compared the effectiveness of a new topical anesthetic, tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine (TetraLidoPhen), with that of lidocaine infiltration during repair of mucous membrane lacerations in children. It was conducted in the emergency department of an urban children's hospital with use of a prospective, randomized, blinded study design. Participants were 90 children 1 year of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length on or near a mucous membrane that required suturing. They were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups, with 45 patients in each group. Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, a videotape reviewer, parents, and patients 5 years of age and older using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Suture technicians, research assistants, a videotape reviewer, and parents also scored pain using a seven-point Likert scale. In addition, suture technicians completed an Anesthesia Effectiveness scale and a Wound Blanching scale. The laceration was located near the eyes in 71 patients (79%), and on or near the lips in 19 (21%). Lidocaine infiltration performed significantly better than topical TetraLidoPhen in comparisons of Likert scores of suture technicians (P = 0.007), research assistants (P = 0.005), the videotape reviewer (P = 0.003), and parents (P = 0.03); Anesthetic Effectiveness scale scores of suture technicians (P = 0.00002; relative risk (RR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.36 < RR < 2.46); and VAS scores of suture technicians (P = 0.002), research assistants (P = 0.001), and the videotape reviewer (P = 0.005). No significant difference in performance was detected between lidocaine and TetraLidoPhen in comparing VAS scores of parents and patients. There was a 4.4% wound complication rate, including two (2.2%) wound infections. The authors conclude that TetraLidoPhen is a new topical anesthetic that appears to be safe when applied on or near mucous membranes. Its performance among study participants was statistically inferior to that of lidocaine infiltration; however, the differences in pain scores were small and may not be clinically significant. Also, comparisons of pain scores in this study did not take into account the pain associated with the initial injection of lidocaine. Therefore, study findings may underestimate the comparative performance of TetraLidoPhen. Further investigation of this new topical anesthetic is warranted.

Prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine topical anesthetics compared with tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine during repair of lacerations

The effectiveness of two new topical anesthetics that do not contain cocaine (prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine) was compared with that of tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine (TAC) during laceration repair in children. This study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial conducted in the emergency department of a large children's hospital. Participants were 180 children 1 year of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length that required suturing. Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, parents, and patients 5 years of age and older using a visual analogue scale (VAS). There was no statistical difference demonstrated between the effectiveness of prilocaine-phenylephrine and that of TAC for any of the observer groups. A statistically significant difference was seen among anesthetics when comparing VAS scores of research assistants (P = .002), suture technicians (P = .006), and parents (P = .03), but not when comparing VAS ratings of patients (P = .07). Based on Tukey's post hoc test, these statistically significant differences were between TAC and bupivacaine-phenylephrine. When power analyses were performed using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, it was possible to detect a difference of 1.3 VAS units for each rater group. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine. Prilocaine-phenylephrine statistically outperformed bupivacaine-phenylephrine and offers an effective alternative to TAC during laceration repair in children.

New non-cocaine-containing topical anesthetics compared with tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine during repair of lacerations

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of three new topical anesthetics that do not contain cocaine (prilocaine-phenylephrine, tetracaine-phenylephrine [tetraphen], and tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine) to that of tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine (TAC) during laceration repair in children.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

The emergency department of an urban children's hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Children 1 year of age or older with a laceration </= 5 cm in length that required suturing. Intervention. A total of 240 children were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, parents, and patients >/= 5 years of age using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Suture technicians, research assistants, and parents also scored pain using a seven-point Likert scale. In addition, suture technicians completed an anesthetic effectiveness scale.

RESULTS

There was consistently no difference demonstrated between the effectiveness of tetraphen and that of TAC for each outcome measure of each observer group. A statistically significant difference was seen among anesthetics when comparing VAS and Likert scale scores of suture technicians and Likert scale scores of research assistants. Based on post hoc analyses, these statistically significant differences were between TAC and prilocaine-phenylephrine (suture technician VAS and Likert scale) and between TAC and tetracaine-lidocaine-phenyl-ephrine (suture technician Likert scale), but not between TAC and tetraphen. When power analyses were performed using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, it was possible to detect a difference of 1.2 VAS units for each of the observer groups. Based on anesthetic effectiveness scale scores, the three new topical preparations collectively performed significantly better on the face and scalp than on the extremities (relative risk = 1.83; 95% confidence interval 1.20 < relative risk < 2.79).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of three new non-cocaine-containing topical anesthetics. Consistently, there was no statistical difference demonstrated between the effectiveness of tetraphen and that of TAC for each outcome measure of each observer group. Tetraphen offers an effective alternative to TAC during laceration repair in children.