Prilocaine-phenylephrine topical anesthesia for repair of mucous membrane lacerations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of prilocaine-phenylephrine (Prilophen), a new topical anesthetic that does not contain cocaine, to that of lidocaine infiltration during repair of lacerations on or near mucous membranes in children. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, blinded trial. SETTING: The emergency department of a large academic children's hospital. PATIENTS: Children one year of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length on or near a mucous membrane. INTERVENTIONS: Forty patients were randomly assigned one of the two local anesthetics, with 20 patients in each treatment group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, a videotape reviewer, parents, and patients five years of age and older using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in performance between topical Prilophen and lidocaine infiltration when VAS pain scores of research assistants, parents, and patients were compared. However, lidocaine infiltration performed significantly better than topical Prilophen when comparing VAS scores of suture technicians (P = 0.003) and the videotape reviewer (P = 0.02). When power analyses were performed using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, it was possible to detect a difference of 2 units for VAS scores of suture technicians, 2 VAS units for research assistants, 3 VAS units for the videotape reviewer and parents, and 7 VAS units for patients. There were no wound healing or other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Prilophen is a new topical anesthetic alternative to lidocaine infiltration for closure of lacerations on or near mucous membranes, where use of tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine is contraindicated. The performance of Prilophen was rated by two of the observer groups as statistically inferior to that of lidocaine infiltration; however, the differences in pain scores were small and may not be clinically significant. Further investigation of this new topical anesthetic is warranted.

Tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine topical anesthesia compared with lidocaine infiltration during repair of mucous membrane lacerations in children.

This study compared the effectiveness of a new topical anesthetic, tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine (TetraLidoPhen), with that of lidocaine infiltration during repair of mucous membrane lacerations in children. It was conducted in the emergency department of an urban children's hospital with use of a prospective, randomized, blinded study design. Participants were 90 children 1 year of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length on or near a mucous membrane that required suturing. They were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups, with 45 patients in each group. Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, a videotape reviewer, parents, and patients 5 years of age and older using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Suture technicians, research assistants, a videotape reviewer, and parents also scored pain using a seven-point Likert scale. In addition, suture technicians completed an Anesthesia Effectiveness scale and a Wound Blanching scale. The laceration was located near the eyes in 71 patients (79%), and on or near the lips in 19 (21%). Lidocaine infiltration performed significantly better than topical TetraLidoPhen in comparisons of Likert scores of suture technicians (P = 0.007), research assistants (P = 0.005), the videotape reviewer (P = 0.003), and parents (P = 0.03); Anesthetic Effectiveness scale scores of suture technicians (P = 0.00002; relative risk (RR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.36 < RR < 2.46); and VAS scores of suture technicians (P = 0.002), research assistants (P = 0.001), and the videotape reviewer (P = 0.005). No significant difference in performance was detected between lidocaine and TetraLidoPhen in comparing VAS scores of parents and patients. There was a 4.4% wound complication rate, including two (2.2%) wound infections. The authors conclude that TetraLidoPhen is a new topical anesthetic that appears to be safe when applied on or near mucous membranes. Its performance among study participants was statistically inferior to that of lidocaine infiltration; however, the differences in pain scores were small and may not be clinically significant. Also, comparisons of pain scores in this study did not take into account the pain associated with the initial injection of lidocaine. Therefore, study findings may underestimate the comparative performance of TetraLidoPhen. Further investigation of this new topical anesthetic is warranted.

Prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine topical anesthetics compared with tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine during repair of lacerations.

The effectiveness of two new topical anesthetics that do not contain cocaine (prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine) was compared with that of tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine (TAC) during laceration repair in children. This study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial conducted in the emergency department of a large children's hospital. Participants were 180 children 1 year of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length that required suturing. Pain felt during suturing was scored by suture technicians, research assistants, parents, and patients 5 years of age and older using a visual analogue scale (VAS). There was no statistical difference demonstrated between the effectiveness of prilocaine-phenylephrine and that of TAC for any of the observer groups. A statistically significant difference was seen among anesthetics when comparing VAS scores of research assistants (P = .002), suture technicians (P = .006), and parents (P = .03), but not when comparing VAS ratings of patients (P = .07). Based on Tukey's post hoc test, these statistically significant differences were between TAC and bupivacaine-phenylephrine. When power analyses were performed using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, it was possible to detect a difference of 1.3 VAS units for each rater group. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of prilocaine-phenylephrine and bupivacaine-phenylephrine. Prilocaine-phenylephrine statistically outperformed bupivacaine-phenylephrine and offers an effective alternative to TAC during laceration repair in children.

New non-cocaine-containing topical anesthetics compared with tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine during repair of lacerations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three new topical anesthetics that do not contain cocaine (prilocaine-phenylephrine, tetracaine-phenylephrine [tetraphen], and tetracaine-lidocaine-phenylephrine) to that of tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine (TAC) during laceration repair in children. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: The emergency department of an urban children's hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Children 1 year of age or older with a laceration /= 5 years of age using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Suture technicians, research assistants, and parents also scored pain using a seven-point Likert scale. In addition, suture technicians completed an anesthetic effectiveness scale. RESULTS: There was consistently no difference demonstrated between the effectiveness of tetraphen and that of TAC for each outcome measure of each observer group. A statistically significant difference was seen among anesthetics when comparing VAS and Likert scale scores of suture technicians and Likert scale scores of research assistants. Based on post hoc analyses, these statistically significant differences were between TAC and prilocaine-phenylephrine (suture technician VAS and Likert scale) and between TAC and tetracaine-lidocaine-phenyl-ephrine (suture technician Likert scale), but not between TAC and tetraphen. When power analyses were performed using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, it was possible to detect a difference of 1.2 VAS units for each of the observer groups. Based on anesthetic effectiveness scale scores, the three new topical preparations collectively performed significantly better on the face and scalp than on the extremities (relative risk = 1.83; 95% confidence interval 1.20 < relative risk < 2.79). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of three new non-cocaine-containing topical anesthetics. Consistently, there was no statistical difference demonstrated between the effectiveness of tetraphen and that of TAC for each outcome measure of each observer group. Tetraphen offers an effective alternative to TAC during laceration repair in children.

Comparison of topical anesthetics with lidocaine infiltration during laceration repair in children.

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.

Comparison of topical anesthetics without cocaine to tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine and lidocaine infiltration during repair of lacerations: bupivacaine-norepinephrine is an effective new topical anesthetic agent.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of four topical anesthetics that do not contain cocaine with that of topical tetracaine-addrenaline-cocaine (TAC) and lidocaine infiltration during laceration repair in children. DESIGN: This was a randomized, blinded trial. SETTING: The study was conducted in the emergency department of a large children's hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were children 2 years of age or older with a laceration 5 cm or less in length that required sururing. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of four noncocaine-containing topical anesthetics, topical TAC, or lidocaine infiltration anesthesia before laceration repair. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures assessed pain perceptions using a Visual Analogue Scale, Likert scale, and Anethetic Effectiveness scale. Distress behaviors of patients were measured with the Restrained Infants and Children Distress Rating Scale. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients were enrolled in the study. Using alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.2, there was statistical power to detect differences of 0.3 to 1.3 U for the outcome measures used. The bupivacaine-norepinephrine topical solution (Bupivanor) performed better than the other three new topical preparations. It provided effective wound anesthesia during lacertion repair, especially for lacerations of the face and scalp, where it was consistently rated as effective as TAC and 1% lidocaine infiltration by all observer groups for all outcome measures. There was a 4% overall wound complication, including one wound infection. CONCLUSION: Bupivanor is an effective alternative to TAC and lidocaine infiltration for local anesthesia during laceration repair, expecially on the face and scalp. The effectiveness of Bupivanor on the face is important, because it is here where TAC is most likely inadvertently to come into contact with mucous membranes and result in systemic toxicity. Because pain and distress scores did not take into consideration the pain associated with the initial injection of lidocaine, the findings of this study conservatively estimate Bupivanor's effectiveness, compared with lidocaine infiltration.

Re-examining the efficacy of child sexual abuse prevention strategies: victims' and offenders' attitudes.

Current sexual abuse prevention programs have been forced to rely on anecdotal clinical information to guide curriculum development. Recent evidence that suggests that sexual abuse offenders can reliably offer information regarding their modus operandi implies that sexual abuse offenders can be important sources of information about the victimization process. However, only one study to date has examined offenders' attitudes about sexual abuse prevention topics, and methodological problems limit the applicability of that study. The current study asked 16 intrafamilial victims, 16 intrafamilial perpetrators, and 15 extrafamilial perpetrators of child sexual abuse to rate the efficacy of various prevention strategies on a Likert-type scale. Results indicated that there were no differences between the three groups and that both victims and offenders appeared to have difficulty discriminating the value of 12 prevention topics, perhaps because the items were too global or because they engendered socially desirable responses. Open-ended questions that asked offenders to identify factors that would dissuade them from pursuing the abuse of particular victims indicated that different prevention skills or strategies may be effective at different stages of the victim-offender "relationship." Overall, the findings suggest that when questioning offenders or victims about the victimization process, investigators need to utilize specific (rather than global) questions and need to separately analyze each stage in the victim-offender relationship. These methodological improvements may offer greater potential for enhancing our knowledge of how to reduce child sexual abuse.