Vocalization assessed by electrolaryngography is unaffected by topical lidocaine anesthesia: a prospective, crossover, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Topical anesthesia of the upper airway is often recommended when difficulty in airway management is anticipated. There are published reports, however, of administration of topical anesthesia resulting in complete loss of airway control. Adverse effects are mostly attributed to interference with involuntary protective airway reflexes, while gross motor function itself generally is thought to be preserved. We hypothesized that if motor control is affected, measurable quantitative changes in vocalization should follow the use of topical anesthesia. METHODS: A prospective, crossover, randomized, double-blind study was conducted, in which 24 healthy volunteers each performed 2 vocal exercises, while having their glottic appearance recorded digitally via fiberoptic nasendoscopy. Subjects gargled with 3 test solutions on separate occasions (placebo, 2% lidocaine, and 4% lidocaine) and repeated the vocal exercises and nasendoscopy. The angle between the vocal cords was measured using MB-Ruler®, and the Laryngograph Speech Studio® software was used for vocal parameter analysis. RESULTS: The only significant changes in voice quality occurred between the control and test groups (P = 0.014). No difference could be found between the placebo and lidocaine groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although gargling with local anesthetic affected vocalization, no pharmacological effect attributable to local anesthetic was observed.

Paediatric cervical spine injury but NEXUS negative.

Cervical spine injuries in paediatric patients following trauma are extremely rare. The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guidelines are a set of clinical criteria used to guide physicians in identifying trauma patients requiring cervical spine imaging. It is validated for use in children. A case of a child who did not fulfil the NEXUS criteria for imaging but was found to have a cervical spine fracture is reported.

Experience of wrong site surgery and surgical marking practices among clinicians in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incidence of "wrong site surgery", but the consequences of this type of medical error can be severe. Guidance from both the USA and more recently the UK has highlighted the importance of preventing error by marking patients before surgery. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences of wrong site surgery and current marking practices among clinicians in the UK before the release of a national Correct Site Surgery Alert. METHODS: 38 telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with consultant surgeons in ophthalmology, orthopaedics and urology in 14 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. The interviews were coded and analysed thematically using the software package QSR Nud*ist 6. RESULTS: Most surgeons had experience of wrong site surgery, but there was no clear pattern of underlying causes. Marking practices varied considerably. Surgeons were divided on the value of marking and varied in their practices. Orthopaedic surgeons reported that they marked before surgery; however, some urologists and ophthalmologists reported that they did not. There seemed to be no formal hospital policies in place specifically relating to wrong site surgery, and there were problems associated with implementing a system of marking in some cases. The methods used to mark patients also varied. Some surgeons believed that marking was a limited method of preventing wrong site surgery and may even increase the risk of wrong site surgery. CONCLUSION: Marking practices are variable and marking is not always used. Introducing standard guidance on marking may reduce the overall risk of wrong site surgery, especially as clinicians work at different hospital sites. However, the more specific needs of people and specialties must also be considered.