EMLA乳膏与利多卡因在小儿肿瘤患者腰椎穿刺疼痛控制中的比较。

Andrea D Merry-Sperry, Elham Alqudah, Alexa Magner, Stephanie Thompson, Pamela Smith, Ashley Meyer, Mohamad Badawi
{"title":"EMLA乳膏与利多卡因在小儿肿瘤患者腰椎穿刺疼痛控制中的比较。","authors":"Andrea D Merry-Sperry,&nbsp;Elham Alqudah,&nbsp;Alexa Magner,&nbsp;Stephanie Thompson,&nbsp;Pamela Smith,&nbsp;Ashley Meyer,&nbsp;Mohamad Badawi","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1758389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>  Subcutaneous lidocaine injection and topical EMLA cream are both used to control lumbar puncture (LP) pain; however, local analgesia usage is not standardized. <b>Methods</b>  We conducted a prospective, single-blinded, randomized-controlled crossover trial comparing the two modalities in reducing LP pain. Pediatric patients requiring serial LPs were randomly assigned to receive EMLA cream or lidocaine injection prior to LP. On the subsequent LP, analgesia was defaulted to the other agent. Pain was assessed using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale pre-procedure: 30 to 60 minutes post-LP, and 24 hours post-procedure. <b>Results</b>  Ten patients were included in the analysis (median age: 5.5 years). Pain ratings at 1 and 24 hours post-LP did not differ between the two strategies ( <i>p</i>  = 0.79). No adverse local reactions were reported for either agent. <b>Conclusion</b>  Accordingly, both lidocaine and EMLA cream provided effective LP pain control.</p>","PeriodicalId":32889,"journal":{"name":"Avicenna Journal of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/35/ad/10-1055-s-0042-1758389.PMC9771623.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of EMLA Cream versus Lidocaine Injection for Lumbar Puncture Pain Control in Pediatric Oncology Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea D Merry-Sperry,&nbsp;Elham Alqudah,&nbsp;Alexa Magner,&nbsp;Stephanie Thompson,&nbsp;Pamela Smith,&nbsp;Ashley Meyer,&nbsp;Mohamad Badawi\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0042-1758389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>  Subcutaneous lidocaine injection and topical EMLA cream are both used to control lumbar puncture (LP) pain; however, local analgesia usage is not standardized. <b>Methods</b>  We conducted a prospective, single-blinded, randomized-controlled crossover trial comparing the two modalities in reducing LP pain. Pediatric patients requiring serial LPs were randomly assigned to receive EMLA cream or lidocaine injection prior to LP. On the subsequent LP, analgesia was defaulted to the other agent. Pain was assessed using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale pre-procedure: 30 to 60 minutes post-LP, and 24 hours post-procedure. <b>Results</b>  Ten patients were included in the analysis (median age: 5.5 years). Pain ratings at 1 and 24 hours post-LP did not differ between the two strategies ( <i>p</i>  = 0.79). No adverse local reactions were reported for either agent. <b>Conclusion</b>  Accordingly, both lidocaine and EMLA cream provided effective LP pain control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Avicenna Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/35/ad/10-1055-s-0042-1758389.PMC9771623.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Avicenna Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758389\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Avicenna Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:利多卡因皮下注射和外用EMLA乳膏均用于腰椎穿刺(LP)疼痛的控制;然而,局部镇痛的使用并不规范。方法:我们进行了一项前瞻性、单盲、随机对照交叉试验,比较两种治疗方式减轻腰痛的疗效。需要一系列LPs的儿科患者被随机分配在LP之前接受EMLA乳膏或利多卡因注射。在随后的LP中,镇痛被默认为另一种药物。术前:lp后30 - 60分钟,术后24小时,使用Wong-Baker FACES疼痛评定量表评估疼痛。结果10例患者纳入分析,中位年龄:5.5岁。lp后1和24小时的疼痛评分在两种策略之间没有差异(p = 0.79)。两种药物均未报告局部不良反应。结论利多卡因与EMLA乳膏均能有效控制腰痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of EMLA Cream versus Lidocaine Injection for Lumbar Puncture Pain Control in Pediatric Oncology Patients.

Background  Subcutaneous lidocaine injection and topical EMLA cream are both used to control lumbar puncture (LP) pain; however, local analgesia usage is not standardized. Methods  We conducted a prospective, single-blinded, randomized-controlled crossover trial comparing the two modalities in reducing LP pain. Pediatric patients requiring serial LPs were randomly assigned to receive EMLA cream or lidocaine injection prior to LP. On the subsequent LP, analgesia was defaulted to the other agent. Pain was assessed using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale pre-procedure: 30 to 60 minutes post-LP, and 24 hours post-procedure. Results  Ten patients were included in the analysis (median age: 5.5 years). Pain ratings at 1 and 24 hours post-LP did not differ between the two strategies ( p  = 0.79). No adverse local reactions were reported for either agent. Conclusion  Accordingly, both lidocaine and EMLA cream provided effective LP pain control.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信