Articles: anesthetics.
-
Health Technol Assess · May 2017
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter StudyFacet joint injections for people with persistent non-specific low back pain (Facet Injection Study): a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2009 guidelines for persistent low back pain (LBP) do not recommend the injection of therapeutic substances into the back as a treatment for LBP because of the absence of evidence for their effectiveness. This feasibility study aimed to provide a stable platform that could be used to evaluate a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular facet joint injections (FJIs) when added to normal care. ⋯ Further work is needed to test recruitment from alternative clinical situations.
-
Multicenter Study Observational Study
Intranasal fentanyl and inhaled nitrous oxide for fracture reduction: The FAN observational study.
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) are frequently used for fracture reduction in pediatric emergency departments (ED). Combining intranasal (IN) fentanyl with inhalation of nitrous oxide (N2O) allow for short recovery time and obviates painful and time-consuming IV access insertions. ⋯ PSA with IN fentanyl and N2O is effective and safe for the reduction of mildly/moderately displaced fracture or dislocation, and has a high satisfaction rate.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine HCl with different epinephrine concentration for local anesthesia in participants undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, phase IV trial.
The most commonly impacted tooth is the third molar. An impacted third molar can ultimately cause acute pain, infection, tumors, cysts, caries, periodontal disease, and loss of adjacent teeth. Local anesthesia is employed for removing the third molar. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars. ⋯ The difference in epinephrine concentration between 1:80,000 and 1:200,000 in 2% lidocaine liquid does not affect the medical efficacy of the anesthetic. Furthermore, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine has better safety with regard to hemodynamic parameters than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Therefore, we suggest using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine rather than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in hemodynamically unstable patients.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
First-time success with needle procedures was higher with a warm lidocaine and tetracaine patch than an eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine cream.
More than 50% of children report apian during venepuncture or intravenous cannulation and using local anaesthetics before needle procedures can lead to different success rates. This study examined how many needle procedures were successful at the first attempt when children received either a warm lidocaine and tetracaine patch or an eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine (EMLA) cream. ⋯ This study showed that the first-time needle procedure success was 7.4% higher in children receiving a warm lidocaine and tetracaine patch than EMLA cream.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Retesting the Hypothesis of a Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial in a Simulation Environment to Validate Anesthesia Simulation in Error Research (the VASER Study).
Simulation has been used to investigate clinical questions in anesthesia, surgery, and related disciplines, but there are few data demonstrating that results apply to clinical settings. We asked "would results of a simulation-based study justify the same principal conclusions as those of a larger clinical study?" ⋯ The results of our simulated randomized controlled trial justified the same primary conclusion as those of our larger clinical randomized controlled trial, but not a finding of equivalence in effect size.