EMLA and amethocaine for reduction of children's pain associated with needle insertion.

BACKGROUND: Children often experience pain from needle insertion procedures; therefore, several topical anaesthetics have been developed. OBJECTIVES: To compare the topical anaesthetics amethocaine and an eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) in terms of anaesthetic efficacy, ease of needle insertion and adverse events when used for intravenous cannulation and venipuncture in children. SEARCH STRATEGY: An exhaustive search that included over 30 databases and handsearching reference lists and journals. Language restrictions were not imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials were selected that compared EMLA and amethocaine for relieving children's pain from intravenous cannulation or venipuncture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently determined eligibility for inclusion by assessing trial quality. Details of eligible studies were summarized. One author was contacted for additional information. Information about adverse events was obtained from the text of the trial reports. Review Manager 4.2 was used to perform a meta-analysis and compute relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials consisting of 534 children, three months to 15 years of age, were included in this review. A meta-analysis was done comparing amethocaine with EMLA on anaesthetic efficacy, ease of needle procedure and resultant skin changes. For anaesthetic efficacy, amethocaine significantly reduced the risk of pain compared to EMLA when all pain data were combined into a common pain metric (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.98); when pain was self-reported by children (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87); or when pain was observed by researchers (sensitivity analysis: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). Compared to EMLA, amethocaine significantly reduced the risk of pain when drugs were applied for the following durations: for 30 to 60 minutes (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91); when applied according to manufacturer's instructions (sensitivity analysis: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89); and when applied for over 60 minutes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96). Amethocaine was also significantly more efficacious than EMLA when used specifically for intravenous cannulation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88). Insufficient data were available to compare anaesthetic efficacy for venipuncture.A comparison of amethocaine and EMLA for ease of a needle procedure was not significant; only one trial reported data that could be included. For skin changes, EMLA was favoured in the analysis of erythema (RR 14.83, 95% CI 2.28 to 96.36). Erythema was observed after use of amethocaine whereas blanching was observed after using EMLA. Adverse effects included itching and one case of conjunctival irritation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although EMLA is an effective topical anaesthetic for children, amethocaine is superior in preventing pain associated with needle procedures.

Pain relief for neonatal circumcision.

BACKGROUND: Circumcision is a painful procedure that many newborn males undergo in the first few days after birth. Interventions are available to reduce pain at circumcision; however, many newborns are circumcised without pain management. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions for reducing pain at neonatal circumcision. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004), EMBASE (1988 - 2004 week 19), CINAHL (1982 - May week 1 2004), Dissertation Abstracts (1986 - May 2004), Proceedings of the World Congress on Pain (1993 - 1999), and reference lists of articles. Language restrictions were not imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pain interventions with placebo or no treatment or comparing two active pain interventions in male term or preterm infants undergoing circumcision. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Ten authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was obtained from the trial reports. For meta-analysis, data on a continuous scale were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) or, when the units were not compatible, as standardized mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five trials involving 1,984 newborns were included. Thirty-three trials enrolled healthy, full term neonates, and two enrolled infants born preterm. Fourteen trials involving 592 newborns compared dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) with placebo or no treatment. Compared to placebo/no treatment, DPNB demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -35 bpm, 95% CI -41 to -30], decreased time crying [WMD -54 %, 95% CI -64 to -44], and increased oxygen saturation [WMD 3.2 %, 95% CI 2.7 to 3.7]. Six trials involving 190 newborns compared eutectic mixture of analgesics (EMLA) with placebo. EMLA demonstrated significantly lower facial action scores [WMD -46.5, 95% CI -80.4 to -12.6], decreased time crying [WMD - 15.8 %, 95% CI -20.8 to -6.8] and lower heart rate [WMD -15 bpm, 95% CI -19 to -10]. DPNB, compared with EMLA in four trials involving 164 newborns, demonstrated significantly lower heart rate [WMD -17 bpm, 95% CI -23 to -11] and pain scores. When compared with sucrose in two trials involving 126 newborns, DPNB demonstrated less time crying [MD -166 s, 95% CI -211 to -121], and lower heart rate [WMD -27 bpm, 95% CI -33 to -20]. Results obtained for trials comparing oral sucrose and oral analgesics to placebo, and trials of environmental modification were either inconsistent or were not significantly different. Adverse effects included gagging, choking, and emesis in placebo/untreated groups. Minor bleeding, swelling and hematoma were reported with DPNB. Erythema and mild skin pallor were observed with the use of EMLA. Methaemoglobin levels were evaluated in two trials of EMLA, and results were within normal limits. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: DPNB was the most frequently studied intervention and was the most effective for circumcision pain. Compared to placebo, EMLA was also effective, but was not as effective as DPNB. Both interventions appear to be safe for use in newborns. None of the studied interventions completely eliminated the pain response to circumcision.