首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Endoscopy International Open >Lidocainespray alone is similar to spray plus viscous solution for pharyngeal observationduring transoral endoscopy: a clinical randomizedtrial
【2h】

Lidocainespray alone is similar to spray plus viscous solution for pharyngeal observationduring transoral endoscopy: a clinical randomizedtrial

机译:利多卡因单独喷雾与观察咽部的喷雾加粘性溶液相似经口内镜检查期间:临床随机试用

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

>Background and study aims It is important to examine the pharynx during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Pharyngeal anesthesia using topical lidocaine is generally used as pretreatment. In Japan, lidocaine viscous solution is the anesthetic of choice, but lidocaine spray is applied when the former is considered insufficient. However, the relationship between the extent of pharyngeal anesthesia and accuracy of observation is unclear. We compared the performance of lidocaine spray alone versus lidocaine spray combined with lidocaine viscous solution for pharyngeal observation during transoral endoscopy. >Patients and methods In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted between January and March 2015, 327 patients were randomly assigned to lidocaine spray alone (spray group, n = 157) or a combination of spray and viscous solution (combination group, n = 170). We compared the number of pharyngeal observable sites (non-inferiority test), pain by visual analogue scale, observation time, and the number of gag reflexes between the two groups. >Results The mean number of images of suitable quality taken at theobservable pharyngeal sites in the spray group was 8.33 (95 % confidenceinterval [CI]: 7.94 – 8.72) per patient, and 8.77 (95 % CI: 8.49 – 9.05) perpatient in the combination group. The difference in the number of observablepharyngeal sites was – 0.44 (95 % CI: – 0.84 to – 0.03, P = 0.01). Therewere no differences in pain, observation time, or number of gag reflexes betweenthe 2 groups. Subgroup analysis of the presence of sedation revealed nodifferences between the two groups for the number of pharyngeal observationsites and the number of gag reflexes. However, the number of gag reflexes washigher in the spray group compared to the combination group in a subgroupanalysis that looked at the absence of sedation. >Conclusions Lidocaine spray for pharyngeal anesthesia was not inferior tolidocaine spray and viscous solution in terms of pharyngeal observation. It wasconsidered that lidocaine viscous solution was unnecessary for pharyngealobservation. UMIN000016073
机译:>背景和研究目的在上消化道内窥镜检查中检查咽部很重要。使用局部利多卡因的咽麻醉通常被用作预处理。在日本,利多卡因粘稠溶液是首选的麻醉剂,但当认为前者不足时可使用利多卡因喷雾。但是,咽部麻醉的程度与观察的准确性之间的关系尚不清楚。我们比较了利多卡因喷雾剂与利多卡因喷雾剂联合利多卡因粘稠溶液在经口内窥镜检查中进行咽部观察的性能。 >患者和方法在这项于2015年1月至3月进行的前瞻性,双盲,随机临床试验中,将327例患者随机分配为单独使用利多卡因喷雾剂(喷雾组,n = 157)或联合使用喷雾剂和粘性溶液(组合组,n = 170)。我们比较了两组患者的咽部可观察部位(非自卑性测试),疼痛程度(通过视觉模拟量表),观察时间和堵嘴反射次数。>结果在喷雾组的咽部可观察部位为8.33(置信度为95%间隔[CI]:每名患者7.94%–28.72),每位患者8.77(95 %% CI:8.49%– 9.05)组合组中的患者。可观察数量的差异咽部位点为– 0.44(95%CI:– 0.84至– 0.03,P = 0.01)。那里之间的疼痛,观察时间或堵嘴反射次数无差异2组。镇静作用的亚组分析显示没有两组之间咽部差异的数量观察部位和堵嘴反射的数量。但是,堵嘴反射的数量是与亚组中的组合组相比,喷雾组中的组较高分析着眼于没有镇静作用。>结论利多卡因喷剂在咽部麻醉方面不逊于利多卡因喷雾和粘稠溶液对咽部而言。它是认为利多卡因粘稠溶液对咽部而言是不必要的观察。 UMIN000016073

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号