Topical anaesthetics for pain control during repair of dermal laceration

Topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine versus topical anaesthesia alone for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Phacoemulsification cataract surgery is usually performed in adults under local anaesthesia. Topical anaesthesia, which involves instilling anaesthetic drops to the ocular surface prior to and during surgery, has found large acceptance internationally. It is safe and allows for rapid patient turnover and visual recovery. Some surgeons have supplemented topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine, reasoning that this may further reduce intraoperative pain, particularly during surgical stages involving manipulation of intraocular structures and rapid changes in fluid dynamics. This review, originally published in 2006 and updated in 2020, explores the efficacy and safety of using supplementary intracameral lidocaine in phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether supplementing topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults reduces intraoperative and postoperative pain, and to assess differences in participant satisfaction, need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, measures of intraocular toxicity, and adverse effects attributable to choice of anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS BIREME iAH, and six trial registries on 4 February 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where participants underwent phacoemulsification for age-related cataract under topical anaesthesia with or without intracameral lidocaine either in two eyes of the same participant, or in different participants. We also included studies that used oral or intravenous sedation in addition to local anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial methodological quality using standard Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new RCTs in this updated review. We included a total of 13 trials in the review, conducted in the UK, the USA, Australia, Italy, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, India, and Pakistan, and comprising 2388 eyes of 2355 participants (one study was a paired-eye study with each participant acting as their own control). The age range of participants was 34 to 95 years. We excluded studies that only included low-risk participants and excluded more difficult operative cases, for example hard lens nuclei or small pupils. We excluded studies assessing only participants with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy. We judged one study as at high risk for selection bias. We assessed five studies as having an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and seven studies an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment. We judged three studies as at high risk of performance bias, as the surgeon was not blinded, and two studies as at unclear risk of bias for this domain. No studies were judged as at high risk for detection bias, but five studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias for this domain. We judged all 13 included studies to have a low risk of attrition bias and an unclear risk of reporting bias. Data from eight RCTs favoured topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine 0.5% to 1% over topical anaesthesia alone for reducing intraoperative pain when measured using a 10-point visual analogue scale, analysed as a continuous outcome. Mean pain score was 0.26 lower in the supplemental intracameral lidocaine group (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.13, 1692 eyes, moderate-quality evidence). Data from seven RCTs favoured supplemental intracameral lidocaine for reducing intraoperative pain when measured as a dichotomous outcome. The odds ratio of experiencing any pain was 0.40 versus the topical anaesthesia-only group (95% CI 0.29 to 0.57, 1268 eyes, moderate-quality evidence). Data from four RCTs did not show any additional benefit on postoperative pain when measured using a 10-point visual analogue scale (mean difference 0.12 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.05, 751 eyes, moderate-quality evidence). The impact on participant satisfaction was uncertain as only one small study investigated this outcome. The study suggested no difference between groups (mean difference 0.1 points, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.27, 60 eyes, low-quality evidence). Data from seven RCTs did not demonstrate a difference between groups in the need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia (odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.39, 1194 eyes of 1161 participants; low-quality evidence), although this result is uncertain. A variety of measures were reported relating to possible intraocular toxicity. Data from four RCTs did not demonstrate a difference between groups in mean percentage corneal endothelial cell count change from pre- to postoperatively (mean difference 0.89%, 95% CI -1.12% to 2.9%, 254 eyes of 221 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Synthesis of the evidence from eight RCTs identified no difference in intraoperative adverse events between groups (odds ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.16, 1726 eyes, low-quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution, mainly due to a lack of clear definitions of adverse events, low numbers of events, heterogeneity between studies, and large confidence intervals. Large observational studies may have been more appropriate for looking at this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that supplementation of topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine 0.5% to 1% for phacoemulsification cataract surgery in adults reduces participant perception of intraoperative pain. The odds of experiencing any pain (as opposed to no pain) were 60% less for the topical anaesthesia plus intracameral lidocaine group versus the topical anaesthesia-only group. However, the numerical amplitude of the effect may not be of great clinical significance on the continuous pain score scale. Generally, the pain scores were consistently low for both techniques. We found moderate-quality evidence that there is no additional benefit of intracameral lidocaine on postoperative pain. There is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on participant satisfaction and need for additional intraoperative anaesthesia due to low-quality evidence. There is moderate-quality evidence that intracameral lidocaine supplementation does not increase measures of intraocular toxicity, specifically loss of corneal endothelial cells. There is low-quality evidence that the incidence of intraoperative adverse events is unchanged with intracameral lidocaine supplementation, but as RCTs are not the optimum medium for looking at this, this result should be interpreted with caution. Further research specifically investigating the adverse effects of intracameral anaesthesia might help to better determine its safety profile. Economic evaluations would also be useful for detailing cost implications.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults following brain surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain following brain surgery can compromise recovery. Several pharmacological interventions have been used to prevent pain after craniotomy; however, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding which interventions are most effective.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing brain surgery; compare them in terms of additional analgesic requirements, incidence of chronic headache, sedative effects, length of hospital stay and adverse events; and determine whether these characteristics are different for certain subgroups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and two trial registries together with reference checking and citation searching on 28th of November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included blinded and non-blinded, randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing neurosurgery, which had at least one validated pain score outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated mean differences for the primary outcome of pain intensity; any pain scores reported on a 0 to 100 scale were converted to a 0 to 10 scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 completed studies (3548 participants) and identified one ongoing study. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) reduce pain up to 24 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -1.16, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.76; 12 hours, MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.14; 24 hours, MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.13; 6 studies, 742 participants; all high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesic requirements: MD 1.29 mg, 95% CI -5.0 to 2.46, 4 studies, 265 participants; nausea and vomiting RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.94, 2 studies, 345 participants; both low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine reduces pain up to 12 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.51, moderate-quality evidence; 12 hours, MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42, low-quality evidence). It did not show efficacy at 24 hours (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.16; 2 studies, 128 participants; low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine may decrease additional analgesic requirements (MD -21.36 mg, 95% CI -34.63 to -8.1 mg, 2 studies, 128 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR -0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.08, 3 studies, 261 participants; hypotension RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.28, 3 studies, 184 participants; both low-quality evidence). Scalp blocks may reduce pain up to 48 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.3, 10 studies, 414 participants; 12 hours, MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.37, 8 studies, 294 participants; 24 hours, MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, 9 studies, 433 participants, all low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.57 to -0.11, 4 studies, 135 participants, very low-quality evidence. When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, significance remained at 12 hours only. Scalp blocks may decrease additional analgesia requirements (SMD -1.11, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.25, 7 studies, 314 participants). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32, 4 studies, 165 participants, very low-quality evidence). Scalp Infiltration may reduce pain postoperatively but efficacy was inconsistent, with a significant effect at 12 and 48 hours only (12 hours, MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.08, 7 studies, 309 participants, low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD - 1.09, 95% CI -2.13 to - 0.06, 3 studies, 128 participants, moderate-quality evidence). No benefit was observed at other times (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.00, 9 studies, 475 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.39, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.27,6 studies, 260 participants, low-quality evidence. Scalp infiltration may reduce additional analgesia requirements MD -9.56 mg, 95% CI -15.64 to -3.49, 6 studies, 345 participants, very low-quality evidence). When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, scalp infiltration lost the pain benefit at 12 hours and effects on additional analgesia requirements, but retained the pain-reducing benefit at 48 hours (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.32, 2 studies, 100 participants, very low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.41, 4 studies, 318 participants, low-quality evidence). Pregabalin or gabapentin may reduce pain up to 6 hours (2 studies, 202 participants), MD -1.15,95% CI -1.66 to -0.6, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). One study examined analgesic efficacy at 12 hours showing significant benefit. No analgesia efficacy was shown at later times (24 hours, MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.19; 48 hours, MD - 0.06, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.77, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). Additional analgesia requirements were not significantly less (MD -0.37 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Risk of nausea and vomiting was significantly reduced (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, 3 studies, 273 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesia requirements: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Acetaminophen did not show analgesic benefit (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.30; 12 hours, MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.03, 3 studies, 332 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.52, 4 studies, 439 participants, high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes remained imprecise (additional analgesia requirements, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.99, 4 studies, 459 participants, high-quality evidence; length of hospitalizations, MD -3.71, 95% CI -14.12 to 6.7, 2 studies, 335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that NSAIDs reduce pain up to 24 hours postoperatively. The evidence for reductions in pain with dexmedetomidine, pregabalin or gabapentin, scalp blocks, and scalp infiltration is less certain and of very low to moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine may reduce additional analgesics requirements. There is low-quality evidence that gabapentin or pregabalin may decrease nausea and vomiting, with the caveat that the total number of events for this comparison was low.

Updates in emergency department laceration management

Lacerations are a common reason for patients to seek medical attention, and are often acutely managed in the emergency department. Recent studies pertaining to closure techniques, sedation and analgesia, advances in wound care, and various other topics have been published, which may enhance our understanding of this injury and improve our management practices. This article will review pertinent studies published in the past few years relevant to laceration management. Understanding the current literature and appreciating which areas warrant further investigation will help us optimize outcomes for patients who sustain laceration injuries.

[Not Available]

Question Un enfant de 8 ans qui habite un petit village se présente à ma clinique avec une lacération de 3 pouces au mollet qui, après évaluation, nécessite une suture. La famille demeure à 4 heures de route de l’urgence la plus proche, et je prévois réparer la blessure à la clinique. Quelle est la meilleure façon de contrôler la douleur chez de jeunes patients qui ont besoin d’une suture pour traiter une lacération?

Réponse Les enfants sont particulièrement susceptibles à l’expérience de forts degrés de douleur et d’anxiété durant des procédures d’urgence courantes comme la réparation d’une lacération. Il importe d’envisager des mesures pour réduire les douleurs causées par l’intervention. L’utilisation d’une anesthésie sans injection, comme le composé de lidocaïne-adrénaline-tétracaïne, pourrait être efficace pour anesthésier la région. Dans les cas où la lidocaïne-adrénaline-tétracaïne ne suffit pas, on peut avoir recours à de la lidocaïne ou de la bupivacaïne additionnelle par injection. Pour réduire la douleur occasionnée par l’injection, on peut tamponner la lidocaïne avec du bicarbonate, réchauffer l’ampoule de lidocaïne, et injecter la solution lentement et perpendiculairement à la peau.

Pain management for children needing laceration repair

Question An 8-year-old child who lives in a small town has presented to my practice with a 3-inch laceration on the calf that has been assessed and needs repair with sutures. The family lives 4 hours from the nearest emergency department and I was planning to repair the wound in the office. What is the best way to manage pain in young patients needing sutures for laceration repair?Answer Children are particularly susceptible to experiencing high levels of pain and anxiety during routine emergency procedures such as laceration repair. It is important to consider measures to reduce procedural pain. Using needle-free anesthesia, such as the lidocaine-adrenaline-tetracaine combination, might be effective to anesthetize the area. In instances where lidocaine-adrenaline-tetracaine is not sufficient, additional injected lidocaine or bupivacaine can be used. Buffering lidocaine with bicarbonate, warming the lidocaine ampule, and injecting the compound slowly at a perpendicular angle to the skin will reduce pain associated with the injection.