尿道内注射奥那曲妥毒素之前的注射方案随机对照试验。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Sarah A Ward, Annliz Macharia, Michele R Hacker, Eman A Elkadry, William D Winkelman
{"title":"尿道内注射奥那曲妥毒素之前的注射方案随机对照试验。","authors":"Sarah A Ward, Annliz Macharia, Michele R Hacker, Eman A Elkadry, William D Winkelman","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06080-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Achieving adequate pain relief is crucial for intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA treatments for idiopathic overactive bladder in office settings. The objective of this study was to determine whether buffered lidocaine bladder instillation provides better pain control than standard lidocaine prior to intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing two protocols. The standard protocol used a pre-procedure instillation of 50 ml of 1% lidocaine and 50 ml of 0.9% saline. The buffered lidocaine protocol used 50 ml of 1% lidocaine, 45 ml of 0.9% saline, and 5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. Both protocols were administered 20 min before onabotulinumtoxinA injections. Female patients with a primary diagnosis of idiopathic overactive bladder were randomized. The primary outcome was procedural pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) measured in millimeters, with secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 76 patients enrolled, 38 were randomized to each group. Data were analyzed for 37 patients in the buffered lidocaine group, and 36 in the standard lidocaine group. Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. There was no difference in median pain measured by VAS between the buffered (16 [9-40]) and standard (25 [15-55]) protocols (p = 0.21). The buffered group reported a higher, though not statistically significant, satisfaction rate (68% vs 39%, p = 0.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections are generally well tolerated among women with idiopathic overactive bladder. No difference was found between protocols, suggesting that buffered lidocaine instillation may not improve pain control among women with idiopathic overactive bladder, although we had insufficient power to detect a difference of the observed magnitude.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized Controlled Trial of Instillation Protocols Prior to Intradetrusor OnabotulinumtoxinA.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah A Ward, Annliz Macharia, Michele R Hacker, Eman A Elkadry, William D Winkelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00192-025-06080-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Achieving adequate pain relief is crucial for intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA treatments for idiopathic overactive bladder in office settings. The objective of this study was to determine whether buffered lidocaine bladder instillation provides better pain control than standard lidocaine prior to intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing two protocols. The standard protocol used a pre-procedure instillation of 50 ml of 1% lidocaine and 50 ml of 0.9% saline. The buffered lidocaine protocol used 50 ml of 1% lidocaine, 45 ml of 0.9% saline, and 5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. Both protocols were administered 20 min before onabotulinumtoxinA injections. Female patients with a primary diagnosis of idiopathic overactive bladder were randomized. The primary outcome was procedural pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) measured in millimeters, with secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 76 patients enrolled, 38 were randomized to each group. Data were analyzed for 37 patients in the buffered lidocaine group, and 36 in the standard lidocaine group. Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. There was no difference in median pain measured by VAS between the buffered (16 [9-40]) and standard (25 [15-55]) protocols (p = 0.21). The buffered group reported a higher, though not statistically significant, satisfaction rate (68% vs 39%, p = 0.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections are generally well tolerated among women with idiopathic overactive bladder. No difference was found between protocols, suggesting that buffered lidocaine instillation may not improve pain control among women with idiopathic overactive bladder, although we had insufficient power to detect a difference of the observed magnitude.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Urogynecology Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Urogynecology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06080-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06080-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言和假设:实现充分的疼痛缓解是至关重要的肌内肉毒杆菌毒素治疗特发性膀胱过动症在办公室设置。本研究的目的是确定在肌内注射肉毒杆菌毒素a之前,缓冲利多卡因膀胱灌注是否比标准利多卡因能更好地控制疼痛。方法:我们进行了一项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验,比较了两种方案。标准方案采用术前滴注50毫升1%利多卡因和50毫升0.9%生理盐水。缓冲利多卡因方案使用1%利多卡因50 ml, 0.9%生理盐水45 ml, 8.4%碳酸氢钠5 ml。两种方案均在注射肉毒杆菌毒素前20分钟使用。初步诊断为特发性膀胱过动症的女性患者随机分组。主要结果是程序性疼痛,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)以毫米为单位测量,次要结果是患者满意度和重复手术的意愿。结果:76例入组患者中,38例随机分为两组。对缓冲利多卡因组37例患者和标准利多卡因组36例患者进行数据分析。两组具有可比的基线特征。缓冲组(16[9-40])和标准组(25[15-55])的VAS测量中位疼痛无差异(p = 0.21)。缓冲组报告了更高的满意度,尽管没有统计学意义(68%对39%,p = 0.08)。结论:对于特发性膀胱过动症患者,肌肌内注射肉毒杆菌毒素a的耐受性良好。不同方案之间没有发现差异,这表明缓冲利多卡因滴注可能不能改善特发性膀胱过动症女性的疼痛控制,尽管我们没有足够的能力来检测观察到的差异程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Instillation Protocols Prior to Intradetrusor OnabotulinumtoxinA.

Introduction and hypothesis: Achieving adequate pain relief is crucial for intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA treatments for idiopathic overactive bladder in office settings. The objective of this study was to determine whether buffered lidocaine bladder instillation provides better pain control than standard lidocaine prior to intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections.

Methods: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing two protocols. The standard protocol used a pre-procedure instillation of 50 ml of 1% lidocaine and 50 ml of 0.9% saline. The buffered lidocaine protocol used 50 ml of 1% lidocaine, 45 ml of 0.9% saline, and 5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. Both protocols were administered 20 min before onabotulinumtoxinA injections. Female patients with a primary diagnosis of idiopathic overactive bladder were randomized. The primary outcome was procedural pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) measured in millimeters, with secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure.

Results: Of the 76 patients enrolled, 38 were randomized to each group. Data were analyzed for 37 patients in the buffered lidocaine group, and 36 in the standard lidocaine group. Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. There was no difference in median pain measured by VAS between the buffered (16 [9-40]) and standard (25 [15-55]) protocols (p = 0.21). The buffered group reported a higher, though not statistically significant, satisfaction rate (68% vs 39%, p = 0.08).

Conclusion: Intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections are generally well tolerated among women with idiopathic overactive bladder. No difference was found between protocols, suggesting that buffered lidocaine instillation may not improve pain control among women with idiopathic overactive bladder, although we had insufficient power to detect a difference of the observed magnitude.

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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
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