Lidocaine/prilocaine spray for premature ejaculation.

Although premature ejaculation is the most common ejaculation problem, it is poorly understood and currently has no standard definition.1 Typically, it involves reduced time to ejaculation, inability to control or delay ejaculation and associated distress.1-5 Treatments that have been assessed include psychosexual counselling, antidepressants (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors, tramadol and topical anaesthetic agents (e.g. lidocaine/prilocaine cream). A new formulation (cutaneous spray) of lidocaine/prilocaine (Fortacin-Plethora Solutions Ltd.) was launched in the UK in November 2016 for the treatment of primary premature ejaculation.6,7 Here, we consider the evidence for lidocaine/prilocaine spray and whether it has a role in the treatment of premature ejaculation.

[Use of 2 % hyperbaric prilocaine for spinal anesthesia : sensitivity analysis in outpatient surgery]. / Einsatz von 2 %igem hyperbarem Prilocain zur Spinalanästhesie : Sensitivitätsanalyse in der ambulanten Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % has been available for spinal anesthesia in Germany for 2 years and is characterized by a short duration of action, a lack of postspinal urine retention and a reduction of transient neurological syndromes. However, desirable pharmacological properties are contrasted by higher pharmacological costs compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 %. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper deals with a sensitivity analysis for the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % versus hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % in Germany and investigates the financial break-even point up to which time a shorter patient stay in the recovery area compensates for the higher costs for the use of prilocaine 2 % for ambulatory spinal aaesthesia. A sensitivity analysis is an instrument of investment appraisal. It is a model to reduce a complex system with numerous variables to a straightforward calculation by assuming a framework requirement and systematically changing only one or two variables. In this paper additional costs for spinal anesthesia have been neglected, only the time a nurse spends with the patient in the recovery area and the costs for each vial of drug have been taken into account. RESULTS: For the assumption of 75 min time until leaving the recovery area and being discharged after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % versus 150 min (recovery of motor competence) or 405 min (voiding) with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % the calculation shows a cost benefit for hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % of EUR 11.64 or EUR 64.76 compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % and EUR 13.32 or EUR 66.44 compared to isobaric bupivacaine 0.5 %. Under the assumption that all patients who have received spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % can be discharged from the recovery area after 150 min, the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % remains more economical as long as the patient is discharged from the recovery area within 130 min. If 405 min recovery time is assumed for hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % the costs compared with hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % will be compensated after 300 min. To be more economical compared to patients with hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % those who received hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % must be discharged from the recovery area within at least 100 min. However, a time of less than 160 min for discharge from the recovery area is not published anywhere in the literature. In summary, the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % for 60 min operation time is cheaper than the use of bupivacaine 0.5 % as long as patients do not stay in the recovery area for longer than 120 min and are discharged from the recovery area. CONCLUSIONS: For German framework conditions the use of hyperbaric prilocaine 2 % can provide an economical advantage compared to the use of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % if staff assignment can be flexible.

Comparison of 4 analgesic agents for venipuncture.

This study compared pain on application, pain on venipuncture, cost, and convenience of 4 analgesic agents used for venipuncture. A convenience sample of 280 preoperative subjects was assigned randomly to 1 of 4 groups. Group 1 received 2.5% lidocaine--2.5% prilocaine cream (LPC) topically, Group 2 received dichlorotetrafluoroethane spray (DCTF), Group 3 received 0.5% lidocaine subcutaneously, and group 4 received normal saline with 0.9% benzyl alcohol (BA) subcutaneously. A 7-point verbal descriptor scale measured pain on application, and a 100-mm visual analogue scale measured pain on venipuncture. Cost was measured and compared on unit-dose basis. Convenience was measured with a questionnaire survey completed by the investigators. There was no significant difference (P < .05) among the groups for age, sex, ASA physical status, or difficulty of venipuncture. There was a significant difference in pain on application for all 4 agents (P < .05). The DCTF had the highest pain on application score (1.7 +/- 0.1), while the LPC had no pain on application (0.0 +/- 0). Lidocaine had a higher pain on application score (1.08 +/- 0.1) than the BA (0.52 +/- 0.1) but a lower score than DCTF. Lidocaine (1.3 +/- 0.3) was significantly less painful (P < .05) on venipuncture than LPC (2.18 +/- 0.3) and DCTF (2.5 +/- 0.3) but was not significantly different than BA (1.92 +/- 0.3). (All scores are given as mean +/- SEM.) There was a significant difference in cost and convenience among the 4 agents, with BA and lidocaine being the least expensive analgesic agents. Lidocaine, DCTF, and BA were equally convenient to use, while LPC was the least convenient, (P < .05). Lidocaine had low pain on venipuncture and low cost and convenience of use, but it was less than ideal in terms of pain on application. The BA had all the qualities of an ideal analgesic agent for venipuncture in this sample and should be considered as an analgesic agent for venipuncture.

V. A new route, jet injection of lidocaine for skin wheal for painless intravenous catheterization.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of intradermal lidocaine anesthesia by two jet injectors to the routine needle infiltration and to the topical EMLA cream. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, prospective, controlled trial, 100 consenting surgicenter patients in a university hospital setting were divided into four groups (n = 25, each); intradermal lidocaine anesthesia was given either by the conventional 25 g needle/syringe or the Med-E-Jet or Biojector injector or EMLA cream was applied on the skin. Visual analogue pain scores (VAS) or verbal pain intensity scores (PIS) were reported by the patients at lidocaine application and i.v. catheterization. Cost was also assessed. RESULTS: At lidocaine application, no pain was reported, since proportions of VAS = 0 were 25/25 (CI: 0.868, 0.999) with Med-E-Jet; 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with Biojector; 25/25 (0.868, 0.999) with EMLA; in contrast to pain, 3/25 (0.044, 0.302) with the needle (PP > 0.999). The VAS scores (mean +/- SD) were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.04 +/- 0.20, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 2.4 +/- 2.2 respectively (p < 0.00 1). No pain was reported by proportions of PIS = 0 with Med-E-Jet: 25/25 (CI: 0.868, 0.999); with Biojector: 23/25 (0.749, 0.976); EMLA 25/25 (0,868, 0.999); but pain with the needle: 5/25 (0.090, 0.394) (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD PIS scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.16 +/- 0.55, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 1.24 +/- 1.00, respectively (p < 0.001). At i.v. catheterization, the proportions of VAS = 0 scores were 22/25 with Med-E-Jet (0.698, 0.956); 21/25 (0.651, 0.934) with Biojector; but some pain with needle: 6/25 (0.116, 0.436) (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD VAS scores were: 0.12 +/- 0.33, 0.44 +/- 0.20, and 1.64 +/- 1.50, respectively (p < 0.001). No pain was reported by PIS = 0 scores in 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with Med-E-Jet; 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with the Biojector; but pain by zero PIS scores 13/25 (0.334, 0.703) in half of the patients in the needle group (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 0.76 +/- 0.88, respectively (p < 0.001). The EMLA cream was not evaluated because of inadequate duration of application prior to anesthetic induction. Cost/application were: Med-E-Jet = $ 0.13; needle = $ 0.50; Biojector = $ 0.94 and EMLA = $ 3.76. CONCLUSION: Almost completely painless i.v. catheterization by jet injection of lidocaine was accomplished, while needle infiltration produced pain/discomfort and did not significantly reduce it at the i.v. needle insertion.