首页> 外文期刊>International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics >V. A new route, jet injection of lidocaine for skin wheal for painless intravenous catheterization.
【24h】

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

机译:V.一种新的途径,利多卡因喷射注射治疗皮肤无痛静脉注射。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

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 =
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较两种射流注射器皮内注射利多卡因麻醉与常规针头浸润和局部EMLA乳膏的疗效。受试者和方法:在一项随机,前瞻性,对照试验中,将大学医院环境中100名同意的医疗中心患者分为四组(每组n = 25)。皮下注射利多卡因麻醉可以通过常规的25 g针头/注射器进行,也可以使用Med-E-Jet或Biojector注射器或将EMLA乳膏涂在皮肤上。利多卡因应用和静脉内注射的患者报告了视觉类似物疼痛评分(VAS)或言语疼痛强度评分(PIS)。导尿。成本也进行了评估。结果:使用利多卡因时,未见疼痛报道,因为使用Med-E-Jet时VAS = 0的比例为25/25(CI:0.868,0.999)。使用Biojector的24/25(0.804,0.991); EMLA为25/25(0.868,0.999);与疼痛相反,用针进行3/25(0.044,0.302)(PP> 0.999)。 VAS评分(平均值+/- SD)分别为0.00 +/- 0.00、0.04 +/- 0.20、0.00 +/- 0.00和2.4 +/- 2.2(p <0.00 1)。 Med-E-Jet的PIS = 0的比例为25/25(CI:0.868,0.999),无疼痛报告。使用Biojector:23/25(0.749,0.976); EMLA 25/25(0,868,0.999);但针头疼痛:5/25(0.090,0.394)(PP> 0.999)。 +/- SD PIS平均得分分别为0.00 +/- 0.00、0.16 +/- 0.55、0.00 +/- 0.00和1.24 +/- 1.00(p <0.001)。在i.v.导管插入术,使用Med-E-Jet时,VAS = 0评分的比例为22/25(0.698,0.956);使用Biojector时为21/25(0.651,0.934);但针头有些疼痛:6/25(0.116,0.436)(PP> 0.999)。 +/- SD VAS平均得分分别为:0.12 +/- 0.33、0.44 +/- 0.20和1.64 +/- 1.50(p <0.001)。 Med-E-Jet的PIS = 0/24/25(0.804,0.991)评分未报告疼痛;使用生物注射器时为24/25(0.804,0.991);但针头组中一半患者的疼痛由零PIS评分为13/25(0.334,0.703)(PP> 0.999)。 +/- SD平均得分分别为0.00 +/- 0.00、0.00 +/- 0.00和0.76 +/- 0.88(p <0.001)。 EMLA乳膏未进行评估,因为在麻醉诱导前应用时间不足。成本/应用程序为:Med-E-Jet =

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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