Impact of liposomal bupivacaine on opioid use, hospital length of stay, discharge status, and hospitalization costs in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Aims: Effective postsurgical analgesia hastens recovery, reduces hospital length of stay (LOS), and decreases hospitalization costs for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Improving these outcomes is critical for value-based surgical bundled payment programs such as the Medicare Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement and similar programs for commercial insurance providers. This study compared clinical outcomes and hospitalization costs for patients undergoing THA with and without liposomal bupivacaine (LB).Materials and methods: This retrospective, comparative cohort study used data from the Premier Healthcare Database from the 10 hospitals with highest use of LB for THA from January 2011 through April 2017. A cohort undergoing THA with LB at those hospitals was compared with a propensity-score matched cohort at those hospitals who had THA without LB. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariable analyses compared post-surgical inpatient opioid consumption, hospital LOS, discharge status, same-hospital readmissions, and total hospitalization costs. Analyses were performed using the Pearson Chi-square test (categorical variables) and Wilcoxon or Student t-test (continuous variables).Results: For patients with Medicare (with LB, n = 3622; without LB, n = 3610) and commercial insurance (with LB, n = 2648; without LB, n = 2709), use of LB was associated with lower post-surgical inpatient opioid consumption (105 and 81 mg, respectively; p < 0.0001), a 0.7-day shorter LOS (p < 0.0001), a 1.6-1.7-fold increased likelihood of home discharge (p < 0.0001), and no increase in readmissions (p ≥ 0.103). Total hospitalization costs were $561 lower with LB in the Medicare population (p < 0.0001) and $41 higher with LB in the commercial population (p = 0.7697).Limitations: Hospitalization costs were estimated from the hospital chargemaster. Findings from these 10 hospitals may not represent other US hospitals.Conclusions: At select hospitals, THA with LB was associated with reduced post-surgical inpatient opioid consumption, shorter hospital LOS, increased likelihood of home discharge, and lower hospitalization costs. Post-surgical pain management with LB may help hospitals in value-based bundled payment programs.

Impact of treatment with liposomal bupivacaine on hospital costs, length of stay, and discharge status in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty at high-use institutions

Aims: Post-surgical pain experienced by patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be severe. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs incorporating multimodal analgesic regimens have evolved in an attempt to improve patient care while lowering overall costs. This study examined clinical and economic outcomes in hospitals using liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for pain control following TKA.Methods: This retrospective observational study utilized hospital chargemaster data from the Premier Healthcare Database from January 2011 through April 2017 for the 10 hospitals with the highest number of primary TKA procedures using LB. Within these hospitals, patients undergoing TKA who received LB were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio to a control group not receiving LB. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge status, 30-day same-hospital readmissions, total hospitalization costs, and opioid consumption; only patients with Medicare or commercial insurance as the primary payer for TKA were considered.Results: The study population included 20,907 Medicare-insured patients (LB = 10,411; control =10,496) and 12,505 patients with commercial insurance (LB = 6,242; control = 6,263). Overall, LOS was 0.6 days shorter with LB (p < 0.0001), and patients who received LB were 1.6-times more likely to be discharged home (p < 0.0001). Total hospitalization costs for the TKA procedure were lower with LB for patients with both Medicare (-$616; P < 0.0001) and commercial insurance (-$775; p < 0.0001). Opioid consumption was lower with LB in both payer populations (p < 0.0001). No significant differences for 30-day readmissions were found.Limitations: Costs were estimated using Premier charge-to-cost ratios and limited to goods and services recorded in the chargemaster. Findings from these 10 hospitals may not be representative of other US hospitals.Conclusions: In a sub-set of 10 US hospitals with the highest use of LB for TKA, LB use was associated with shorter hospital LOS, increased home discharge, lower total hospitalization costs, and decreased opioid use after TKA.

Lidocaine/prilocaine spray for premature ejaculation

Although premature ejaculation is the most common ejaculation problem, it is poorly understood and currently has no standard definition.¹ Typically, it involves reduced time to ejaculation, inability to control or delay ejaculation and associated distress.^1-5 Treatments that have been assessed include psychosexual counselling, antidepressants (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors, tramadol and topical anaesthetic agents (e.g. lidocaine/prilocaine cream). A new formulation (cutaneous spray) of lidocaine/prilocaine (Fortacin-Plethora Solutions Ltd.) was launched in the UK in November 2016 for the treatment of primary premature ejaculation.^6,7 Here, we consider the evidence for lidocaine/prilocaine spray and whether it has a role in the treatment of premature ejaculation.

Wide Awake Hand Surgery

Wide awake hand surgery employs local-only anesthesia with low-dose epinephrine to create a bloodless field without the use of an arm tourniquet. Despite traditional teaching, evidence-based medicine suggests epinephrine is safe for use in hand and digital anesthesia. Eliminating an arm tourniquet reduces the requirement for sedation and general anesthetic. This confers particular advantage in surgeries such as tendon repairs, tendon transfers, and soft tissue releases in which intraoperative active motion can used to optimize outcomes. The wide awake approach also confers significant benefit to patients, providers, and health care systems alike due to efficiencies and cost savings.

A cost analysis of orthopedic foot surgery: can outpatient continuous regional analgesia provide the same standard of care for postoperative pain control at home without shifting costs?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Same-day surgery is common for foot surgery. Continuous regional anesthesia for outpatients has been shown effective but the economic impact on the perioperative process-related healthcare costs remains unclear.

METHODS

One hundred twenty consecutive patients were included in this assessor-blinded, prospective cohort study and allocated according to inclusion criteria in the day-care or in the in-patient group. Standardized continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block was performed in both groups for 48 h using an elastomeric pump delivering ropivacaine 0.2 % at a rate of 5 ml/h with an additional 5 ml bolus every 60 min. Outpatients were discharged the day of surgery and followed with standardized telephone interviews. The total direct health costs of both groups were compared. Moreover, the difference in treatment costs and the difference in terms of quality of care and effectiveness between the groups were compared.

RESULTS

Total management costs were significantly reduced in the day-care group. There was no difference between the groups regarding pain at rest and with motion, persistent pain after catheter removal and the incidence of PONV. Persistent motor block and catheter inflammation/infection were comparable in both groups. There was neither a difference in the number of unscheduled ambulatory visits nor in the number of readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Day-care continuous regional analgesia leads to an overall positive impact on costs by decreasing the incidence of unplanned ambulatory visits and unscheduled readmissions, without compromising on the quality of analgesia, patients' satisfaction, and safety.

Activity-based costing analysis of the analgesic treatments used in postoperative pain management in Italy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the costs of 72-hour postoperative pain treatment in patients undergoing major abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic procedures in nine different Italian hospitals, defined as the cumulative cost of drugs, consumable materials and time required for anesthesiologists, surgeons and nurses to administer each analgesic technique.

METHODS

Nine Italian hospitals have been involved in this study through the administration of a questionnaire aimed to acquire information about the Italian clinical practice in terms of analgesia. This study uses activity-based costing (ABC) analysis to identify, measure and give value to the resources required to provide the therapeutic treatment used in Italy to manage the postoperative pain patients face after surgery. A deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) has been performed to identify the cost determinants mainly affecting the final cost of each treatment analyzed. Costs have been reclassified according to three surgical macro-areas (abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic) with the aim to recognize the cost associated not only to the analgesic technique adopted but also to the type of surgery the patient faced before undergoing the analgesic pathway.

RESULTS

Fifteen different analgesic techniques have been identified for the treatment of moderate to severe pain in patients who underwent a major abdominal, orthopedic or thoracic surgery. The cheapest treatment actually employed is the oral administration "around the clock" (€ 8.23), whilst the most expensive is continuous peripheral nerve block (€ 223.46). The intravenous patient-controlled analgesia costs € 277.63. In terms of resources absorbed, the non-continuous administration via bolus is the gold standard in terms of cost-related to the drugs used (€ 1.28), and when administered pro re nata it also absorbs the lowest amount of consumables (€0.58€) compared to all other therapies requiring a delivery device. The oral analgesic administration pro re nata is associated to the lowest cost in terms of health professionals involved (€ 6.25), whilst intravenous PCA is the most expensive one (€ 245.66), requiring a massive monitoring on the part of physicians and nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis successfully collected information about costs of 72-hour postoperative pain treatment in patients undergoing major abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic procedures in all the nine different Italian hospitals. The interview showed high heterogeneity in the treatment of moderate to severe pain after major abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic surgeries among responding anesthesiologists, with 15 different analgesic modalities reported. The majority of the analgesic techniques considered in the analysis is not recommended by any guideline and their application in real life can be one of the reasons for the high incidence of uncontrolled pain, which is still reported in the postoperative period. Health care costs have become more and more important, although the choice of the best analgesic treatment should be a compromise between efficacy and economic considerations.

Use of Lidocaine 2% Gel Does Not Reduce Pain during Flexible Cystoscopy and Is Not Cost-Effective

PURPOSE

To compare the use of lubricant gel with lidocaine versus lubricant gel without anesthetic in flexible cystoscopy in terms of pain and tolerability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this observational non-randomized study, 72 patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 included 38 patients in whom lidocaine gel 2% was used and group 2 included 34 patients in whom lubricant gel without anesthetic was administered. The main variables analyzed were score in visual analogue scale (VAS) and score in Spanish Pain Questionnaire (SPQ). Student's t-test and Chi-square test were used to compare differences between 2 groups. The P values < .05% were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients in group 1 was 64.50 ± 12.39 years and 67.79 ± 10.87 years in group 2 (P = .23). The distribution according to sex was 29 men and 9 women in group 1 and 25 men and 9 women in group 2 (P = .78). The total VAS score was 2.21 ± 2.05 in group 1 versus 1.59 ± 1.61 in group 2 (P = .16). In the SPQ, the current intensity value was 1.82 ± 0.86 in group 1 versus 1.53 ± 0.74 in group 2 (P = .14), and the total intensity value was 1.92 ± 1.86 in group 1 versus 1.03 ± 1.75 in group 2 (P = .04). The cost of gel with lidocaine is 1.25 euro and gel without anesthetic 0.22 euro.

CONCLUSION

The use of lidocaine gel does not produce benefit in terms of pain relief in flexible cystoscopy and also is costly.

An experienced physiotherapist prescribing and administering corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections to the shoulder in an Australian orthopaedic service, a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial and economic analysis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The early management of orthopaedic outpatients by physiotherapists may be useful in reducing public hospital waiting lists. Physiotherapists in Australia are prevented by legislation and funding models from investigating, prescribing, injecting and referring autonomously. This gap in service is particularly noticeable in the management of shoulder pain in early-access physiotherapy services, as patients needing corticosteroid injection face delays or transfer to other services for this procedure. This trial will investigate the clinical (decision making and outcomes) and economic feasibility of a physiotherapist prescribing and delivering corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections for shoulder pain in an Australian public hospital setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

A double-blinded (patient and assessor) non-inferiority randomised controlled trial will compare an orthopaedic surgeon and a physiotherapist prescribing and delivering corticosteroid injections to the shoulder. Agreement in decision making between the two clinicians will be investigated, and economic information will be obtained for estimating disease burden and an economic evaluation. The surgeon and the physiotherapist will independently assess patients, and 64 eligible participants will be randomised to receive subacromial injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic from either the surgeon or the physiotherapist. Post-injection, all participants will receive physiotherapy. The primary outcome measure will be the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index measured at baseline, and at 6 and 12 weeks post-injection. Analysis will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis and compared to a per-protocol analysis. A cost-utility analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the health funder.

DISCUSSION

Findings will assist policy makers and services in improving access for orthopaedic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: 12612000532808 First registered: 21 May 2012. First participant randomized: 16 January 2013.

Subacromial impingement syndrome and pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of exercise and corticosteroid injection (the SUPPORT trial)

BACKGROUND

Subacromial impingement syndrome is the most frequent cause of shoulder problems which themselves affect 1 in 3 adults. Management commonly includes exercise and corticosteroid injection. However, the few existing trials of exercise or corticosteroid injection for subacromial impingement syndrome are mostly small, of poor quality, and focus only on short-term results. Exercise packages tend to be standardised rather than individualised and progressed. There has been much recent interest in improving outcome from corticosteroid injections by using musculoskeletal ultrasound to guide injections. However, there are no high-quality trials comparing ultrasound-guided and blind corticosteroid injection in subacromial impingement syndrome. This trial will investigate how to optimise the outcome of subacromial impingement syndrome from exercise (standardised advice and information leaflet versus physiotherapist-led exercise) and from subacromial corticosteroid injection (blind versus ultrasound-guided), and provide long-term follow-up data on clinical and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study design is a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial. 252 adults with subacromial impingement syndrome will be recruited from two musculoskeletal Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services at the primary-secondary care interface in Staffordshire, UK. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1:1:1 basis to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet, (3) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, or (4) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet. The primary intention-to-treat analysis will be the mean differences in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores at 6 weeks for the comparison between injection interventions and at 6 months for the comparison between exercise interventions. Although independence of treatment effects is assumed, the magnitude of any interaction effect will be examined (but is not intended for the main analyses). Secondary outcomes will include comparison of long-term outcomes (12 months) and cost-effectiveness. A secondary per protocol analysis will also be performed.

DISCUSSION

This protocol paper presents detail of the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the SUPPORT trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current controlled trials ISRCTN42399123.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a new 8% capsaicin patch, compared to the current treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical lidocaine patches, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin.

METHODS

A 1-year Markov model was constructed for PHN with monthly cycles, including dose titration and management of adverse events. The perspective of the analysis was from a payer perspective, managed-care organization. Clinical trials were used to determine the proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in PHN pain, the efficacy parameter. The outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); second-order probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The effectiveness results indicated that 8% capsaicin patch and topical lidocaine patch were significantly more effective than the oral PHN products. TCAs were least costly and significantly less costly than duloxetine, pregabalin, topical lidocaine patch, 8% capsaicin patch, but not gabapentin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 8% capsaicin patch overlapped with the topical lidocaine patch and was within the accepted threshold of cost per QALY gained compared to TCAs, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregablin. The frequency of the 8% capsaicin patch retreatment assumption significantly impacts its cost-effectiveness results. There are several limitations to this analysis. Since no head-to-head studies were identified, this model used inputs from multiple clinical trials. Also, a last observation carried forward process was assumed to have continued for the duration of the model. Additionally, the trials with duloxetine may have over-predicted its efficacy in PHN. Although a 30% improvement in pain is often an endpoint in clinical trials, some patients may require greater or less improvement in pain to be considered a clinical success.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness results demonstrated that 8% capsaicin and topical lidocaine patches had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents used to treat PHN. In addition, this cost-effectiveness analysis found that the 8% capsaicin patch was similar to topical lidocaine patch and within an accepted cost per QALY gained threshold compared to the oral products.

Descriptive analysis of Medicaid patients with postherpetic neuralgia treated with lidocaine patch 5%

OBJECTIVES

To compare demographic and comorbidity profiles and healthcare costs of Medicaid patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) treated with lidocaine patch 5% (lidocaine patch) versus patients not treated with the lidocaine patch. Repeat comparison for the subset of patients treated in long-term care (LTC) settings.

METHODS

Patients, age≥18 years, with PHN diagnosis, or PHN-likely patients with herpes zoster diagnosis and ≥30 days of PHN-recommended treatment, were identified in Medicaid claims from Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and New Jersey (1999-2007). Patients had continuous eligibility 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after (study period) the PHN index date. Patients with ≥1 claim for a lidocaine patch during the study period (n=872) were compared to patients without a lidocaine patch claim (comparison group). Baseline characteristics, study period treatment and healthcare costs (reimbursements by Medicaid for medical services and prescription drugs) were compared between groups using univariate analyses.

RESULTS

PHN patients in the lidocaine patch group were older (64.5 vs. 62.2 years; p=0.002) and had higher rates of pain-related comorbidities (e.g., back/neck pain, osteoarthritis) than comparison patients. Average PHN-related drug costs per patient were higher ($1994 vs. 1137; p<0.0001) among lidocaine patch patients, with lidocaine patch accounting for $505 of the difference. PHN-related medical costs appeared lower in the lidocaine patch group, although not statistically significant ($983 vs. 1294; p=0.1348). No significant differences were found in total healthcare costs ($20,175 vs. 19,124; p=0.3720) across groups, despite higher total prescription drug costs among lidocaine patch patients. A similar pattern was observed among LTC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher rates of comorbidities and prescription drug costs, lidocaine patch patients had similar study period healthcare costs as comparison patients. The cost of the lidocaine patch represented a small fraction of overall costs incurred over the study period.

LIMITATIONS

Findings are based on a Medicaid sample and may not be generalizable to all PHN patients.

Transrectal-HIFU as primary minimally-invasive option for localized prostate cancer. Is spinal anaesthesia cost-effective? A single centre experience in over 100 patients

INTRODUCTION

The management of Prostate cancer (PC), since PSA testing has been introduced in the clinical practice, has been significantly spoiled by a "leading-time bias" effect. As a consequence, this has brought to a dramatic diagnosis anticipation at the 4th-5th decade of life in sexually active and otherwise asymptomatic men. Standard options as radical prostatectomy or EBRT are hampered by a significant negative impact on patient's QoL. More recently several alternative minimally-invasive ablative treatment modalities have been proposed with promising results. Among these, TR-HIFU (Trans-Rectal High Intensity Focused Ultrasound) is playing a growing role in the treatment of localized low-intermediate risk PC, although long-term oncologic outcome are still awaited. In order to achieve an optimal result, a specific TR-HIFU's requirement is given by an unchanging target throughout the whole procedure. Therefore, the ideal anaesthesia should be either minimally-invasive and allow to get a motionless target up to 3-4 hours. A retrospective evaluation of efficacy and safety of a spinal anaesthesia in this patient's setting was done.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

107 patients with localized prostate cancer treated in our institution from October 2004 to December 2007 with TR-HIFU procedure received a subarachnoidal anaesthesia with combined administration of 0.5% normobaric racemic bupivacaine (15 to 17.5 mg) and sufentanil 5 microg.

RESULTS

This technique allowed covering the whole TR-HIFU procedure (analgesia and motor blockade up to 4-5 hours). It was well tolerated by patients who only rarely required additional sedative or analgesics. A low anaesthesia-related side effects rate, as arterial hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and no severe side effects of intrathecal opioids, as deep sedation, bradycardia, myosis, bradypnea and oxygen desaturation, occurred. Intraoperative employment of sedatives and postoperative need of analgesics was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a low-dose intrathecal sufentanil an effective spinal block either on the sensitive and motor pathways was provided. Patients' tolerance to the procedure was good and the side-effect rate low. No adverse reactions to intrathecal sufentanil 5 microg were observed. In our experience TR-HIFU can be performed with neuraxial block in most of the cases and it's associated to a favorable cost-benefit rate.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Lidocaine 5% Medicated Plaster Relative to Gabapentin for Postherpetic Neuralgia in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of elderly patients develop postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) after herpes zoster infection (shingles). A lidocaine 5% medicated plaster marketed in the United Kingdom in January 2007 has been shown to be an effective topical treatment for PHN with minimal risk of systemic adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

This paper assessed the cost-effectiveness of using a lidocaine plaster in place of gabapentin in English primary care practice to treat those PHN patients who had insufficient pain relief with standard analgesics and could not tolerate or had contraindications to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The analysis took the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

The costs and benefits of gabapentin and the lidocaine plaster were calculated over a 6-month time horizon using a Markov model. The model structure allowed for differences in costs, utilities, and transition probabilities between the initial 30-day run-in period and maintenance therapy and also accounted for add-in medications and drugs received by patients who discontinued therapy. Most transition probabilities were based on non-head-to-head clinical trials identified through a systematic review. Data on resource utilization, discontinuation rates, and add-in or switch medications were obtained from a Delphi panel; cost data were from official price tariffs. Published utilities were adjusted for age and were supplemented and validated by the Delphi panel.

RESULTS

Six months of therapy with the lidocaine plaster cost pound 549 per patient, compared with pound 718 for gabapentin, and generated 0.05 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The lidocaine plaster therefore dominated gabapentin (95% CI, dominant- pound 2163/QALY gained). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 90.15% chance that the lidocaine plaster was both less costly and more effective than gabapentin and a 99.99% chance that it cost < pound 20,000/QALY relative to gabapentin. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was a cost-effective alternative to gabapentin for PHN patients who were intolerant to TCAs and in whom analgesics were ineffective, from the perspective of the NHS.

A comparison of spinal anesthesia with small-dose lidocaine and general anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol for ambulatory prostate biopsy procedures in elderly patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare operating conditions, intraoperative adverse events, recovery profiles, postoperative adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and costs of small-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia with those of general anesthesia using fentanyl and propofol for elderly outpatient prostate biopsy.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, blind study.

SETTING

Outpatient anesthesia unit at a municipal hospital.

PATIENTS

80 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 65 to 80 years, scheduled for outpatient prostate biopsy.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to receive either spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine (L group, n=40) or anesthetic induction with fentanyl 1 microg.kg-1 IV and 1.0 mg.kg-1 propofol injected at 90 mg.kg-1.h-1, followed by continuous infusion at 6 mg.kg-1.h-1 (F/P group, n=40).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Both anesthetic techniques provided acceptable operating conditions for the surgeon. However, a significantly higher frequency of intraoperative hypotension was found in the F/P group than in the L group (P<0.05). Time to home readiness was shorter in the F/P group (P<0.05). Both techniques had no major postoperative adverse effects and resulted in a high rate of patient satisfaction. Total costs were significantly lower in the L group than in the F/P group (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine may be a more suitable alternative to general anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol for ambulatory elderly prostate biopsy in terms of safety and costs.

A randomized trial of local anesthesia with intravenous sedation vs general anesthesia for the vaginal correction of pelvic organ prolapse

The purpose of this study is to compare the feasibility of local anesthesia with IV sedation versus general anesthesia for vaginal correction of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients with pelvic organ prolapse who were scheduled for an anterior or posterior colporrhaphy, or an obliterative procedure, and who did not have a contraindication or preference to type of anesthesia were randomized to one of the two anesthesia groups. Nineteen patients were randomized to the general group and 21 patients were randomized to the local group. Mean operating room, anesthesia, and surgical time were similar in each group, and 10 patients in the local group bypassed the recovery room. Requests and doses of antiemetics, postoperative verbal numerical pain scores and length of hospital stay were similar between the two groups. Mean recovery room and total hospital costs were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia with IV sedation is a feasible alternative for vaginal surgery to correct pelvic organ prolapse.

Comparison of Bacteriostatic Normal Saline and Lidocaine Used as Intradermal Anesthesia for the Placement of Intravenous Lines

Pain with intravenous (IV) insertion is a common fear for preoperative patients. As perianesthesia nurses, we take the necessary measures to minimize the discomfort and anxiety of our patients. Several research studies have found the use of bacteriostatic normal saline (BNS) to produce a less painful, yet equally effective, safer, and less expensive alternative method for intradermal anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a difference existed in pain with intradermal injection and pain with venipuncture when intradermal anesthesia was used. Using an experimental design, 221 participants were randomly assigned by lottery convenience sampling into three groups: lidocaine, BNS, and no local anesthesia. Patients were asked to quantify their pain/discomfort level after the intradermal injection and IV insertion using a modified visual analog scale. Significant findings (P = < .05) indicated that BNS was less painful on injection, and both BNS and lidocaine were effective as local anesthetics for IV insertion. This study helped perianesthesia nurses and patients in determining which method of IV insertion is more effective and reasonably acceptable to ensure patient comfort, satisfaction, and positive outcomes.

An economic evaluation of bupivacaine plus fentanyl versus ropivacaine alone for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after total-knee replacement procedure: a double-blinded randomized study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Total-knee replacement (TKR) surgery is one of the most painful orthopedic procedures after surgery. Opioid has been commonly combined with a local anesthetic to improve the quality of pain relief, but the treatment has opioid-related side effects. This study compared the cost effectiveness of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl (BF) 3 microg/mL versus 0.15% ropivacaine alone (R) during the first 48 hours after TKR procedure.

METHODS

This prospective randomized double-blinded study was performed on 70 patients who underwent unilateral TKR procedure and received either BF or R after surgery. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at rest and upon movement, side effects, and cost of treatment were compared.

RESULTS

Overall pain at rest and upon movement between groups was not significantly different (P = 0.58, 95% CI = 4.4 to -7.8 and P = 0.8, 95% CI = 6.4 to -8.2, respectively). Patients in the BF group experienced more pruritus and had more vomiting episodes than those in the R group (P = .015), whereas no difference occurred in other side effects. Nevertheless, patient satisfaction with pain management was higher in the BF group compared with that in the R group. In addition, pain treatment with bupivacaine and fentanyl was 18% less costly compared with ropivacaine alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the economic evaluation, we conclude that PCEA with 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 3 microg/mL is more cost effective and provides more patient satisfaction than PCEA with ropivacaine alone. However, use of epidural ropivacaine alone causes fewer opioid-related side effects, particularly pruritus and vomiting.

Botulinum toxin A versus bupivacaine trigger point injections for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome: a randomised double blind crossover study

The treatment of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is diverse and includes trigger point injections of various substances including local anesthetics, steroids and Botulinum toxin A (BTX A). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of trigger point injections using BTX A versus bupivacaine, both in combination with a home-based rehabilitation program. To be enrolled, subjects first had to demonstrate responsiveness to bupivacaine trigger point injection. In this single center, double blind, randomized, cross-over trial, 18 patients with MPS received trigger point injections of either 25 units Botulinum toxin A or 0.5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine per trigger point. A maximum of eight trigger points were injected per subject. Subjects were followed until their pain returned to 75% or more of their pre-injection pain for two consecutive weeks, after which there was a 2 week wash-out period. The subjects then crossed over and had the same trigger points injected with the other agent. All subjects participated in a home exercise program involving static stretches of the affected muscles. Both treatments were effective in reducing pain when compared to baseline (P=0.0067). There was, however, no significant difference between the BTX A and 0.5% bupivacaine groups in duration or magnitude of pain relief, function, satisfaction or cost of care (cost of injectate excluded). Considering the high cost of BTX A, bupivacaine is deemed a more cost-effective injectate for MPS.

Cost-effectiveness and safety of epidural steroids in the management of sciatica

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESIs) in the treatment of sciatica with an adequately powered study and to identify potential predictors of response to ESIs. Also, to investigate the safety and cost-effectiveness of lumbar ESIs in patients with sciatica.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up was performed. Patients were stratified according to acute (<4 months since onset) versus chronic (4-18 months) presentation. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with last observation carried forward used to impute missing data.

SETTING

Rheumatology, orthopaedic and pain clinics in four participating centres: three district hospitals and one teaching hospital in the south of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Total of 228 patients listed for ESI with clinically diagnosed unilateral sciatica, aged between 18 and 70 years, who had a duration of symptoms between 4 weeks and 18 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received up to three injections of epidural steroid and local anaesthetic (active), or an injection of normal saline into the interspinous ligament (placebo).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ); measures of pain relief and psychological and physical function were collected. Health economic data on return to work, analgesia use and other interventions were also measured. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the SF-6D, calculated from the Short Form (SF-36). Costs per patient were derived from figures supplied by the centres' finance departments and a costings exercise performed as part of the study. A cost-utility analysis was performed using the SF-36 to calculate costs per QALY.

RESULTS

ESI led to a transient benefit in ODQ and pain relief, compared with placebo at 3 weeks (p = 0.017, number needed to treat = 11.4). There was no benefit over placebo between weeks 6 and 52. Using incremental QALYs, this equates to and additional 2.2 days of full health. Acute sciatica seemed to respond no differently to chronic sciatica. There were no significant differences in any other indices, including objective tests of function, return to work or need for surgery at any time-points. There were no clinical predictors of response, although the trial lacked sufficient power to be confident of this. Adverse events were uncommon, with no difference between groups. Costs per QALY to providers under the trial protocol were 44,701 pounds sterling. Costs to the purchaser per QALY were 354,171 pounds sterling. If only one ESI was provided then costs per QALY fell to 25,745 pounds sterling to the provider and 167,145 pounds sterling to the purchaser. ESIs thus failed the QALY threshold recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESIs appear relatively safe, it was found that they confer only transient benefit in symptoms and self-reported function in a small group of patients with sciatica at substantial costs. ESIs do not provide good value for money if NICE recommendations are followed. Additional research is suggested into the epidemiology of radicular pain, producing a register of all ESIs, possible subgroups who may benefit from ESIs, the use of radiological imaging, optimal early interventions, analgesic agents and nerve root injections, the use of cognitive behavioural therapy in rehabilitation, improved methods of assessment, a comparative cost-utility analysis between various treatment strategies, and methods to reduce the effect of scarring and inflammation.

Cost-effectiveness of thoracic patient-controlled epidural analgesia using bupivacaine with fentanyl vs bupivacaine with morphine after thoracotomy and upper abdominal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and cost of thoracic patient-controlled epidural analgesia (TPCEA) using bupivacaine with fentanyl (BF) vs bupivacaine with morphine (BM) solution.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

In a blinded, randomized controlled trial, 90 adult patients who were scheduled for thoracotomy or upper abdominal surgery were enrolled. All patients were anesthetized by a combined general/epidural technique. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesia was provided by TPCEA using bupivacaine 0.0625% with either fentanyl (group BF) or morphine (group BM) solution. The occurrence and severity of side effects, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain at rest and during movement, patients' satisfaction score as well as charged cost of pain and side effect management were recorded for 48 hrs.

RESULTS

Demographic data of both groups were not significantly different. No statistical differences were noted with respect to efficacy of pain relief between the 2 groups. Only 28.5% of the patients in group BM required supplemental systemic analgesia within 24 hours after epidural catheter removal compared with 51.4% in the group BE Patients' satisfaction and the severity of epidural analgesia related side effects, using itching and nausea/vomiting score, of both groups were not significantly different except the median nausea/ vomiting scores of group BM at 18 and 24 hours were statistically higher than those of group BF (P = 0.047 and 0.02, at 18 and 24 hour respectively) but not clinically different. The mean charged cost of medication used in group BM (470.64 +/- 160.54 baht) was lower than that in group BF (814.15 +/- 217.51 baht).

CONCLUSION

TPCEA using BF and BM solution resulted in similar pain relief and side effect profiles but with higher charged cost of medication in group BF Morphine appears to be a more cost-effective choice than fentanyl for TPCEA after thoracotomy or upper abdominal surgery.

Randomized double-blind comparison of lidocaine gel and plain lubricating gel in relieving pain during flexible cystoscopy

PURPOSE

To compare the pain induced by outpatient flexible cystoscopy in men having local lidocaine jelly application or plain lubricant.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind study to compare the anesthetic effect of intraurethral 2% lidocaine gel (N = 45) and plain lubricant (N = 46) in men undergoing outpatient flexible cystoscopy. The age, prostate size, and examination time were similar in the two groups. Before cystoscopy, we filled the urethra with 20 mL of gel, which was held for 15 minutes. A 15.5F flexible cystoscope was then used for examination. A 10-point visual analog pain scale (1 = least to 10 = most painful) and a four-point pain grade (grade 1 = least to grade 4 = most painful) were used to measure the pain perception. The amount of postoperative analgesic used and willingness to adopt the same anesthesia for future cystoscopy were also recorded.

RESULTS

The mean pain scores for the lidocaine and plain gel groups were 2.8 +/- 1.1 and 2.5 +/- 1.1, respectively (P = 0.06), while the pain grades for the lidocaine gel and plain gel groups were 1.6 +/- 0.6 and 1.8 +/- 0.7, respectively (P = 0.19). In both groups, many patients (42.2% in the lidocaine gel group and 37% in the plain lubricant group) felt the external sphincter and prostatic urethra were the most uncomfortable areas during cystoscopy. Postcystoscopic analgesics were requested by 12 of 45 patients in the lidocaine group, but only 6 of 46 of the plain-gel group (P = 0.103). When patients were asked if they would desire general anesthesia for better pain control in future examinations, five of the lidocaine group responded positively, while three of the plain-gel group said they would (P = 0.62). The cost of lidocaine gel is about thrice that of the plain gel.

CONCLUSION

Using plain lubricant is cheaper and faster than applying lidocaine gel. The pain score, pain grade, postcystoscopic analgesic requirement, and anesthetics requested for the next cystoscopy were similar in the two groups. However, a larger investigation will be needed to achieve more significant statistical power.

Patient evaluation of a novel non-injectable anesthetic gel: a multicenter crossover study comparing the gel to infiltration anesthesia during scaling and root planing

BACKGROUND

Periodontal scaling procedures commonly require some kind of anesthesia. From the patient's perspective, the choice of anesthetic method is a trade-off between the degree of anesthesia and accepting the side effects. The present study evaluates the preferences for a novel non-injection anesthetic product (a gel, containing lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g and thermosetting agents) versus injection anesthesia (lidocaine 2% adrenaline) in conjunction with scaling and/or root planing (SRP).

METHODS

In a multicenter, crossover, randomized, open study patients were asked, after they had experienced both products, if they preferred anesthetic gel or injection anesthesia. In addition, the adequacy of anesthesia and occurrence of post-procedure problems were assessed. The patients were also asked about their willingness to return if they were offered anesthetic gel at their next visit and their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for this option.

RESULTS

One-hundred seventy (170) patients at eight centers in Belgium were included in the study. There were 157 per protocol (PP) patients. A vast majority of the PP patients (70%) preferred the anesthetic gel to injection anesthesia (22%). The most common reason was less post-procedure numbness. Eighty percent (80%) of the patients expressed satisfactory anesthesia with the gel and 96% with injection anesthesia (P <0.001). Post-procedure problems were significantly less with the gel than with injection (P <0.001): numbness 15% versus 66%, unpleasant sensations such as soreness and pain 44% versus 63%, and problems connected with daily activities 19% versus 69%. The majority of patients (60%) who preferred gel were also willing to pay for it. A conservative estimate of the median WTP was $10.00. Furthermore, anesthetic gel would make almost every second patient (45%) more or much more willing to return for the next treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that a somewhat less profound anesthesia with gel is clearly preferred by the patients because of the low incidence of post-procedure problems as compared to conventional injection anesthesia. The median WTP is likely in excess of the acquisition cost of the product, which indicates a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the individual patient.

Quantification of patient fears regarding dental injections and patient perceptions of a local noninjectable anesthetic gel

Data have shown that 30% of all Americans do not seek dental care and/or treatment unless a problem arises that causes them severe pain. Similar study results have been found in Europe as well. While some studies indicate that cost concerns prevent people from seeking dental care, the fear of pain has been identified as a factor in keeping people from seeing a dentist. A random sample of US and European patients who had recently undergone a scaling and root planing procedure was surveyed via telephone interview to quantify data on patient concerns and fears regarding anesthesia administered by injection, as well as to determine patient interest and price perception of an anesthetic gel product. The survey also provided data on the patient's experience and perception about the scaling and root planing procedure. Responses from the study population showed that patients find the injection painful and do not like the prolonged numbness. Additionally, based on the patients surveyed, they experience injection anxiety before appointments, and a significant number of them cancel appointments or simply do not seek treatment because they are afraid of the injection. Finally, the study also demonstrated that, while not eliminating dental anxiety completely, the availability of a new noninjectable anesthetic would assist in relieving patient fear, with almost half of the patients surveyed being more likely to seek treatment if only the new noninjectable anesthetic was used. Additionally, most patients surveyed would be willing to pay for the noninjectable anesthetic out of their own pockets if it was not covered by their health insurance.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Ropivacaine in the Management of Postoperative Pain

Ropivacaine is a long-acting amide-type local anaesthetic, released for clinical use in 1996. In comparison with bupivacaine, ropivacaine is equally effective for subcutaneous infiltration, epidural and peripheral nerve block for surgery, obstetric procedures and postoperative analgesia. Nevertheless, ropivacaine differs from bupivacaine in several aspects: firstly, it is marketed as a pure S(-)-enantiomer and not as a racemate, and secondly, its lipid solubility is markedly lower. These features have been suggested to significantly improve the safety profile of ropivacaine, and indeed, numerous studies have shown that ropivacaine has less cardiovascular and CNS toxicity than racemic bupivacaine in healthy volunteers. Extensive clinical data have demonstrated that epidural 0.2% ropivacaine is nearly identical to 0.2% bupivacaine with regard to onset, quality and duration of sensory blockade for initiation and maintenance of labour analgesia. Ropivacaine also provides effective pain relief after abdominal or orthopaedic surgery, especially when given in conjunction with opioids or other adjuvants. Nevertheless, epidurally administered ropivacaine causes significantly less motor blockade at low concentrations. Whether the greater degree of blockade of nerve fibres involved in pain transmission (Adelta- and C-fibres) than of those controlling motor function (Aalpha- and Abeta-fibres) is due to a lower relative potency compared with bupivacaine or whether other physicochemical properties or stereoselectivity are involved, is still a matter of intense debate. Recommended epidural doses for postoperative or labour pain are 20-40 mg as bolus with 20-30 mg as top-up dose, with an interval of >or=30 minutes. Alternatively, 0.2% ropivacaine can be given as continuous epidural infusion at a rate of 6-14 mL/h (lumbar route) or 4-10 mL/h (thoracic route). Preoperative or postoperative subcutaneous wound infiltration, during cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair, with ropivacaine 100-175 mg has been shown to be more effective than placebo and as effective as bupivacaine in reducing wound pain, whereby the vasoconstrictive potency of ropivacaine may be involved. Similar results were found in peripheral blockades on upper and lower limbs. Ropivacaine shows an identical efficacy and potency to that of bupivacaine, with similar analgesic duration over hours using single shot or continuous catheter techniques. In summary, ropivacaine, a newer long-acting local anaesthetic, has an efficacy generally similar to that of the same dose of bupivacaine with regard to postoperative pain relief, but causes less motor blockade and stronger vasoconstriction at low concentrations. Despite a significantly better safety profile of the pure S(-)-isomer of ropivacaine, the increased cost of ropivacaine may presently limit its clinical utility in postoperative pain therapy.

Cost effectiveness of interventions for lateral epicondylitis: results from a randomised controlled trial in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Lateral epicondylitis is a common complaint, with an annual incidence between 1% and 3% in the general population. The Dutch College of General Practitioners in The Netherlands has issued guidelines that recommend a wait-and-see policy. However, these guidelines are not evidence based.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This paper presents the results of an economic evaluation in conjunction with a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effects of three interventions in primary care for patients with lateral epicondylitis.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Patients with pain at the lateral side of the elbow were randomised to one of three interventions: a wait-and-see policy, corticosteroid injections or physiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Clinical outcomes included general improvement, pain during the day, elbow disability and QOL. The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective. Direct and indirect costs (in 1999 values) were measured by means of cost diaries over a period of 12 months. Differences in mean costs between groups were evaluated by applying non-parametric bootstrap techniques. The mean total costs per patient for corticosteroid injections were euro430, compared with euro631 for the wait-and-see policy and euro921 for physiotherapy. After 12 months, the success rate in the physiotherapy group (91%) was significantly higher than in the injection group (69%), but only slightly higher than in the wait-and-see group (83%). The differences in costs and effects showed no dominance for any of the three groups. The incremental cost-utility ratios were (approximately): euro7000 per utility gain for the wait-and-see policy versus corticosteroid injections; euro12000 per utility gain for physiotherapy versus corticosteroid injections, and euro34500 for physiotherapy versus the wait-and-see policy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this economic evaluation provided no reason to update or amend the Dutch guidelines for GPs, which recommend a wait-and-see policy for patients with lateral epicondylitis.

New local anesthetics. Are they worth the cost?

Epidural analgesia that uses dilute concentrations of bupivacaine with fentanyl or sufentanil provides excellent analgesia, good sensory-motor discrimination, and minimal toxicity and is inexpensive. The new local anesthetic agents, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine, offer potential improvements in the risk of toxicity when administered in large doses but probably no important clinical difference when used in dilute concentrations for labor analgesia. After accounting for the potency difference, ropivacaine offers little or no motor-sparing advantage over bupivacaine. Currently, epidural anesthesia with concentrated bupivacaine is rarely used for cesarean section, so there is little indication for the newer anesthetic agents in this setting either. The authors believe that large difference in cost cannot be justified on the basis of currently available data.

Cardiac and CNS toxicity of levobupivacaine: strengths of evidence for advantage over bupivacaine

Bupivacaine is currently the most widely used long-acting local anaesthetic. Its uses include surgery and obstetrics; however, it has been associated with potentially fatal cardiotoxicity, particularly when given intravascularly by accident. Levobupivacaine, a single enantiomer of bupivacaine, has recently been introduced as a new long-acting local anaesthetic with a potentially reduced toxicity compared with bupivacaine. Numerous preclinical and clinical studies have compared levobupivacaine with bupivacaine and in most but not all studies there is evidence that levobupivacaine is less toxic. Advantages for levobupivacaine are seen on cardiac sodium and potassium channels, on isolated animal hearts and in whole animals, anaesthetised or awake. In particular the intravascular dose of levobupivacaine required to cause lethality in animals is consistently higher compared with bupivacaine. In awake sheep, for example, almost 78% more levobupivacaine was required to cause death. In contrast, in anaesthetised dogs no differences were seen in the incidence of spontaneous or electrical stimulation- induced ventricular tachycardia and fibrillations among animals exposed to levobupivacaine or bupivacaine. The reversibility of levobupivacaine-induced cardiotoxicity has also been assessed. Some data point to an advantage of levobupivacaine over bupivacaine but this potential advantage was not confirmed in a recent study in anaesthetised dogs. Three clinical studies have been conducted using surrogate markers of both cardiac and CNS toxicity. In these studies levobupivacaine or bupivacaine were given by intravascular injection to healthy volunteers. Levobupivacaine was found to cause smaller changes in indices of cardiac contractility and the QTc interval of the electrocardiogram and also to have less depressant effect on the electroencephalogram. Assuming that levobupivacaine has the same local anaesthetic potency as bupivacaine, then, all things being equal, it is difficult to argue that levobupivacaine should not displace bupivacaine as the long-acting local anaesthetic of choice. It would appear, however, that levobupivacaine has not yet significantly displaced bupivacaine from the markets in which it is sold. This may be due to a lack of perceived safety benefit and/or consideration of the additional costs that are associated with switching to levobupivacaine, which is approximately 57% more expensive than bupivacaine. If the price of levobupivacaine were closer to bupivacaine then the argument to switch to levobupivacaine would undoubtedly be much stronger. With the continued clinical use of levobupivacaine the database available to make comparisons will increase and this may allow cost-benefit arguments to be made more forcefully for levobupivacaine in the future.

Cost-effectiveness of analgesia after Caesarean section. A comparison of intrathecal morphine and epidural PCA

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) techniques and intrathecal morphine are the most widely used treatments for post-Caesarean section pain. However these methods have not been compared with respect to analgesic quality and cost differences.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients scheduled for elective or semi-urgent Caesarean section were randomized to receive for postoperative analgesia either epidural PCA with a mixture containing bupivacaine 0.06% and sufentanil 1 microg x ml(-1) or intrathecal morphine 0.15 mg together with the spinal anaesthetic and to be supplemented with paracetamol and tramadol. Analgesic efficacy, side-effects and costs were calculated during 48 h.

RESULTS

VAS pain scores both at rest and during mobilization were lower in the PCA group, more particularly during the second postoperative day. Nausea and vomiting were more frequently registered in the morphine treated patients. PCA treated patients stayed longer in the recovery room but required fewer nurse interventions on the surgical ward. Manpower and drug costs were equal in both groups. The differences in total costs (Euro) amounted to euros 33 and were mainly caused by the more expensive equipment required for epidural PCA. Satisfaction and hospital discharge were similar for both treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that epidural PCA induced better pain relief, caused less nausea/vomiting but was more expensive than intrathecal morphine.

Putting your money where your mouth is: willingness to pay for dental gel

OBJECTIVES

To measure preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for a novel anaesthetic (dental gel) versus existing anaesthetic options for periodontal maintenance visits.

DESIGN

The study was conducted by developing and administering a survey, composed of a modified decision aid and a WTP instrument. The decision aid provided clinical information in layman's terms. Patients stated their anaesthetic preference; WTP elicited the hypothetical amount of money a subject would pay to have dental gel available for maintenance cleaning, should they require anaesthetic.

PATIENTS

Periodontal recall patients (n = 97; 'recall') and participants from the general population (n = 196; 'general') from southwestern Ontario, Canada.

RESULTS

The overwhelming majority of participants chose dental gel over injectable local anaesthetic or no anaesthetic as their first anaesthetic preference (general: 81.0%; recall: 82.5%). The median WTP for dental gel was 20.00 Canadian dollars (dollars Can) per visit for the general population and dollars Can10.00 for the recall population (1999 values). The majority of participants were willing to pay an insurance premium for dental gel, even if they did not personally prefer dental gel (general: 72.4%; recall: 73.2%). The median monthly premium to have dental gel available for any plan beneficiary requiring scaling and root planing (SRP) during maintenance was dollars Can2.00 per month for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, an alternative to traditional injectable local anaesthetic (i.e. dental gel) was overwhelmingly preferred by both general population participants and recall patients for maintenance cleaning procedures. Most participants were willing to pay to have dental gel available, either for themselves or for others.

Topical anesthetics update: EMLA and beyond

BACKGROUND

Topical anesthetics remain a powerful, new advance for pain relief prior to cutaneous procedures. They are frequently used by dermatologists to decrease the pain associated with laser pulses, surgical procedures, or soft tissue augmentation. EMLA is the most commonly used agent, however, several new topical anesthetic agents have been released recently that claim increased efficacy and a faster onset of action.

OBJECTIVE

We review and compare the efficacy of several commonly used topical anesthetics and provide a look into the future.

CONCLUSION

EMLA remains the most widely used topical anesthetic given its proven efficacy and safety by several clinical trials. There has been a recent release of several new topical anesthetic agents with some demonstrating efficacy after a 30-minute application time. A reservoir of anesthetic is located and stored in the upper skin layers during application, providing additional anesthetic benefit 30 minutes after removal. As the options for the practitioner continue to grow, the demand for faster onset, comparative efficacy, and safety trials will continue to be of paramount importance.

Periradicular infiltration for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To test the efficacy of periradicular corticosteroid injection for sciatica.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The efficacy of epidural corticosteroids for sciatica is controversial. Periradicular infiltration is a targeted technique, but there are no randomized controlled trials of its efficacy.

METHODS

In this study 160 consecutive, eligible patients with sciatica who had unilateral symptoms of 1 to 6 months duration, and who never underwent surgery were randomized for double-blind injection with methylprednisolone bupivacaine combination or saline. Objective and self-reported outcome parameters and costs were recorded at baseline, at 2 and 4 weeks, at 3 and 6 months, and at 1 year.

RESULTS

Recovery was better in the steroid group at 2 weeks for leg pain (P = 0.02), straight leg raising (P = 0.03), lumbar flexion (P = 0.05), and patient satisfaction (P = 0.03). Back pain was significantly lower in the saline group at 3 and 6 months (P = 0.03 and 0.002, respectively), and leg pain at 6 months (13.5, P = 0.02). Sick leaves and medical costs were similar for both treatments, except for cost of therapy visits and drugs at 4 weeks, which were in favor of the steroid injection (P = 0.05 and 0.005, respectively). By 1 year, 18 patients in the steroid group and 15 in the saline group underwent surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement during the follow-up period was found in both the methylprednisolone and saline groups. The combination of methylprednisolone and bupivacaine seems to have a short-term effect, but at 3 and 6 months, the steroid group seems to experience a "rebound" phenomenon.

Prolonged epidural infusions of ropivacaine (2 mg/mL) after colonic surgery: the impact of adding fentanyl

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a 72-h epidural infusion of ropivacaine and measured the impact of adding fentanyl 2 microg/mL to the required infusion rate, on the quality of postoperative pain relief and the incidence of side effects, after colonic surgery. One hundred fifty-five patients scheduled for elective colonic surgery were randomized in this trial. Epidural infusions of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with fentanyl 2 microg/mL (R + F) and without fentanyl (R) were commenced during surgery and continued for 72 h postoperatively. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multi-center trial. The median infusion rate required was less in the R + F group (9.3 vs 11.5 mL/h, P < 0.001). Median pain scores at rest and on coughing were lower in the R + F group (P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was more in the R + F group (P = 0.01). Time to readiness for discharge was delayed in the R + F group (median 6.6 vs 5.5 days, P = 0.012). The addition of fentanyl to ropivacaine resulted in decreased infusion rates and enhanced pain control; however, adverse effects were increased and readiness to discharge was delayed.

IMPLICATIONS

Epidural infusions of ropivacaine with and without fentanyl were administered to patients to control pain after colonic surgery. Patients who received ropivacaine with fentanyl had better pain control, increased side effects, and delayed readiness to discharge. This study questions the value of adding opioids to epidural infusions of local anesthetics.

[Pharmacological and cost effectiveness bases of the use of categel and categel S [correction of F] in urological practice]

Preparations catedgel and catedgel S made in Austria (Montavit) was tried in Moscow hospital N 50. Categel is a sterile gel of methylcellulose with 2% lidocain and 0.05% chlorhexidine, catedgel S contains the same components but lidocain. Categel significantly reduces the risk of infectious-inflammatory complications after endourological manipulations, improves endoscopic diagnosis and makes some manipulations less painful. Comparative pharmacological cost-effect assessment of categel S and glycerine effects in prostatic transurethral resection. Categel was found 2.11 times more effective. It also improves quality of life of the patients. Categel can be recommended for wide use in urology.

Comparison of 4 analgesic agents for venipuncture

This study compared pain on application, pain on venipuncture, cost, and convenience of 4 analgesic agents used for venipuncture. A convenience sample of 280 preoperative subjects was assigned randomly to 1 of 4 groups. Group 1 received 2.5% lidocaine--2.5% prilocaine cream (LPC) topically, Group 2 received dichlorotetrafluoroethane spray (DCTF), Group 3 received 0.5% lidocaine subcutaneously, and group 4 received normal saline with 0.9% benzyl alcohol (BA) subcutaneously. A 7-point verbal descriptor scale measured pain on application, and a 100-mm visual analogue scale measured pain on venipuncture. Cost was measured and compared on unit-dose basis. Convenience was measured with a questionnaire survey completed by the investigators. There was no significant difference (P < .05) among the groups for age, sex, ASA physical status, or difficulty of venipuncture. There was a significant difference in pain on application for all 4 agents (P < .05). The DCTF had the highest pain on application score (1.7 +/- 0.1), while the LPC had no pain on application (0.0 +/- 0). Lidocaine had a higher pain on application score (1.08 +/- 0.1) than the BA (0.52 +/- 0.1) but a lower score than DCTF. Lidocaine (1.3 +/- 0.3) was significantly less painful (P < .05) on venipuncture than LPC (2.18 +/- 0.3) and DCTF (2.5 +/- 0.3) but was not significantly different than BA (1.92 +/- 0.3). (All scores are given as mean +/- SEM.) There was a significant difference in cost and convenience among the 4 agents, with BA and lidocaine being the least expensive analgesic agents. Lidocaine, DCTF, and BA were equally convenient to use, while LPC was the least convenient, (P < .05). Lidocaine had low pain on venipuncture and low cost and convenience of use, but it was less than ideal in terms of pain on application. The BA had all the qualities of an ideal analgesic agent for venipuncture in this sample and should be considered as an analgesic agent for venipuncture.

Ropivacaine

Ropivacaine (Naropin, AstraZeneca) is a long-acting amide local anaesthetic released for clinical use in 1996. Similar to bupivacaine, ropivacaine is equally effective for s.c. infiltration, epidural and peripheral nerve block for surgery, obstetric and post-operative analgesia. Ropivacaine differs from most other amide-type local anaesthetics in that it is marketed as a pure S-enantiomer, instead of as a racemate. This feature improves the safety of ropivacaine, and, indeed, studies have shown ropivacaine to have less cardiovascular and CNS toxicity than bupivacaine. Ropivacaine is nearly identical to bupivacaine in onset, quality and duration of sensory block, but it produces less motor block. Whether or not the motor sparing effect of ropivacaine is due to a lower relative potency compared to bupivacaine is a matter of intense debate. Despite a better safety profile, the increased cost of ropivacaine may limit its clinical utility.

Pain during insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters with and without intradermal lidocaine

Phase 1 of this study evaluated the perception of pain in 50 patients undergoing peripheral venous catheter insertion without the use of a local anesthetic. Phase 2 evaluated perceived pain in 50 patients who received intradermal lidocaine before the i.v. catheter was inserted. The researchers found that lidocaine injected intradermally before placement of an i.v. catheter resulted in significantly lower self-reported pain perceptions (p < 0.01). No additional time (determined in intervals of 15 minutes) was required for the study group. Based on these findings, the hospital policy was modified so that intradermal lidocaine would be offered to all patients requiring peripherally inserted i.v. catheters.

V. A new route, jet injection of lidocaine for skin wheal for painless intravenous catheterization

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of intradermal lidocaine anesthesia by two jet injectors to the routine needle infiltration and to the topical EMLA cream.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In a randomized, prospective, controlled trial, 100 consenting surgicenter patients in a university hospital setting were divided into four groups (n = 25, each); intradermal lidocaine anesthesia was given either by the conventional 25 g needle/syringe or the Med-E-Jet or Biojector injector or EMLA cream was applied on the skin. Visual analogue pain scores (VAS) or verbal pain intensity scores (PIS) were reported by the patients at lidocaine application and i.v. catheterization. Cost was also assessed.

RESULTS

At lidocaine application, no pain was reported, since proportions of VAS = 0 were 25/25 (CI: 0.868, 0.999) with Med-E-Jet; 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with Biojector; 25/25 (0.868, 0.999) with EMLA; in contrast to pain, 3/25 (0.044, 0.302) with the needle (PP > 0.999). The VAS scores (mean +/- SD) were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.04 +/- 0.20, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 2.4 +/- 2.2 respectively (p < 0.00 1). No pain was reported by proportions of PIS = 0 with Med-E-Jet: 25/25 (CI: 0.868, 0.999); with Biojector: 23/25 (0.749, 0.976); EMLA 25/25 (0,868, 0.999); but pain with the needle: 5/25 (0.090, 0.394) (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD PIS scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.16 +/- 0.55, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 1.24 +/- 1.00, respectively (p < 0.001). At i.v. catheterization, the proportions of VAS = 0 scores were 22/25 with Med-E-Jet (0.698, 0.956); 21/25 (0.651, 0.934) with Biojector; but some pain with needle: 6/25 (0.116, 0.436) (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD VAS scores were: 0.12 +/- 0.33, 0.44 +/- 0.20, and 1.64 +/- 1.50, respectively (p < 0.001). No pain was reported by PIS = 0 scores in 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with Med-E-Jet; 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with the Biojector; but pain by zero PIS scores 13/25 (0.334, 0.703) in half of the patients in the needle group (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 0.76 +/- 0.88, respectively (p < 0.001). The EMLA cream was not evaluated because of inadequate duration of application prior to anesthetic induction. Cost/application were: Med-E-Jet = $ 0.13; needle = $ 0.50; Biojector = $ 0.94 and EMLA = $ 3.76.

CONCLUSION

Almost completely painless i.v. catheterization by jet injection of lidocaine was accomplished, while needle infiltration produced pain/discomfort and did not significantly reduce it at the i.v. needle insertion.