American journal of rhinology & allergy · 2014
Comparison of topical anesthetic effects of lidocaine, prilocaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine in transnasal fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Özkiriş Mahmut, Aydin Reha, Gencer Zeliha Kapusuz, Saydam Levent
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to investigate the topical anesthetic efficacy of four different solutions including lidocaine spray, bupivacaine, ropivacaine, and prilocaine used in patients undergoing transnasal fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopic examination (TFL).
METHODS: The study included 200 patients who underwent anterior rhinoscopy and TFL examination as a part of routine otolaryngological evaluation in our outpatient clinics. Of these, 111 were female and 89 were male patients. The mean age of the patients was 32 ± 8 years (aged between 19 and 55 years). The patients were randomly divided into five groups. Five groups received one of the local anesthetics studied in our trial (10% lidocaine, 0.5% ropivacaine, 0.25% bupivacaine, 2% prilocaine, and saline solution) in each right side of the nose for 10 minutes before TFL. Each separate examination was performed on the right side of the nasal cavity. After the examination, the patients were asked to note the intensity of the pain that they have experienced during the TFL, by using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The mean VAS scores were 2.08 (SD, 0.62) in the lidocaine group, 2.21 (SD, 0.66) in the prilocaine group, 3.92 (SD, 0.58) in the ropivacaine group, 4.15 (SD, 0.64) in the bupivacaine group, and 6.35 (SD, 0.65) in the saline solution group. The lidocaine and prilocaine groups had significantly better VAS scores versus ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and saline solution groups (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: To provide ideal examination comfort and optimum patient tolerability during TFL evaluation of upper respiratory airway topical lidocaine and prilocaine applications were found to be more efficacious and effective medication for anesthesia of the intranasal mucosa compared with bupivacaine and ropivacaine solutions.
METHODS: The study included 200 patients who underwent anterior rhinoscopy and TFL examination as a part of routine otolaryngological evaluation in our outpatient clinics. Of these, 111 were female and 89 were male patients. The mean age of the patients was 32 ± 8 years (aged between 19 and 55 years). The patients were randomly divided into five groups. Five groups received one of the local anesthetics studied in our trial (10% lidocaine, 0.5% ropivacaine, 0.25% bupivacaine, 2% prilocaine, and saline solution) in each right side of the nose for 10 minutes before TFL. Each separate examination was performed on the right side of the nasal cavity. After the examination, the patients were asked to note the intensity of the pain that they have experienced during the TFL, by using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The mean VAS scores were 2.08 (SD, 0.62) in the lidocaine group, 2.21 (SD, 0.66) in the prilocaine group, 3.92 (SD, 0.58) in the ropivacaine group, 4.15 (SD, 0.64) in the bupivacaine group, and 6.35 (SD, 0.65) in the saline solution group. The lidocaine and prilocaine groups had significantly better VAS scores versus ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and saline solution groups (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: To provide ideal examination comfort and optimum patient tolerability during TFL evaluation of upper respiratory airway topical lidocaine and prilocaine applications were found to be more efficacious and effective medication for anesthesia of the intranasal mucosa compared with bupivacaine and ropivacaine solutions.