Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Pediatrics
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, G. A.
Right arrow Articles by Powers, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, G. A.
Right arrow Articles by Powers, J. D.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Compound via MeSH
*Substance via MeSH
Hazardous Substances DB
*COCAINE
*EPINEPHRINE
*LIDOCAINE
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of Topical Anesthetics with Lidocaine Infiltration During Laceration Repair in Children

Gary A. Smith

Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University, Division of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University

Steven D. Strausbaugh

The Ohio State University College of Medicine

Cynthia Harbeck-Weber

Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University

Brenda J. Shields

Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University, Division of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University

Jean D. Powers

Children's Hospital Research Foundation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

This study is a randomized, blinded trial that compares the effectiveness of a new topical anesthetic preparation of 2% mepivacaine and 1:100,000 norepinephrine (Mepivanor); a topical solution of 1% tetracaine, 1:4,000 adrenaline, and 4% cocaine (TAC); and 1 % lidocaine infiltration during laceration repair in children. The study was conducted in the emergency department of a large academic children's hospital. Study participants were children 2 years of age or older with a laceration on the face or scalp, 5 cm or less in length, that required suturing. Patients were randomly assigned to receive Mepivanor topical solution, TAC topical solution, or lidocaine infiltration anesthesia prior to laceration repair. Seventy-one patients were enrolled in the study during a 2-month period. Outcome measures assessed pain perceptions using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a seven-point Likert scale. There was statistical power to detect differences of 1.2 to 1.7 units for the VAS outcome measures using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20. There were no statistically significant (P >0.05) differences between TAC and 1% lidocaine infiltration in providing effective anesthesia. Mepivanor was generally less effective in providing adequate anesthesia during laceration repair than TAC and lidocaine infiltration, with Tukey's post hoc test for ANOVA demonstrating statistically significant (P <0.05) differences between Mepivanor and these agents for research assistant and suture technician VAS scores. Wound blanching was judged to be less with Mepivanor than with TAC, although this difference was not statistically significant. There were no adverse reactions, wound infections, or healing difficulties for any of the patients who received TAC or Mepivanor. It was concluded that non-cocaine-containing Mepivanor was generally less effective than TAC and lidocaine infiltration in providing adequate local anesthesia during laceration repair. TAC containing only 120 mg of cocaine (3 mL of 4% cocaine) was as effective as 1% lidocaine infiltration in providing local anesthesia during laceration repair. This will allow the amount of cocaine in TAC to be reduced, thereby decreasing costs and the likelihood of adverse reactions.

Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 36, No. 1, 17-23 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/000992289703600103


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CLIN PEDIATRHome page
B. J. Shields, D. M. Cohen, C. Harbeck-Weber, J. D. Powers, and G. A. Smith
Pediatric Pain Measurement Using a Visual Analogue Scale: A Comparison of Two Teaching Methods
Clinical Pediatrics, April 1, 2003; 42(3): 227 - 234.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
CLIN PEDIATRHome page
G. A. Smith, D. M. Cohen, S. D. Strausbaugh, B. J. Shields, C. Harbeck-Weber, and J. D. Powers
Tetracaine-Lidocaine-Phenylephrine Topical Anesthesia Compared with Lidocaine Infiltration During Repair of Mucous Membrane Lacerations in Children
Clinical Pediatrics, July 1, 1998; 37(7): 405 - 412.
[Abstract] [PDF]