Literature DB >> 17655633

Comparison of lignocaine and water-based lubricating gels for female urethral catheterization: a randomized controlled trial.

Christopher Chung1, Matthew Chu, Richard Paoloni, Mary-Jane O'Brien, Tasha Demel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: It is standard practice to use lignocaine gel during male urethral catheterization. However, it is commonly believed that topical anaesthetic confers no benefit during female catheterization hence lubricating gel alone is more commonly used. The present study aimed to determine whether lignocaine gel decreased pain compared with water-based lubricating gel for female urethral catheterization in the ED.
METHODS: This randomized double-blinded study was carried out at two Sydney hospitals--an urban district inner western hospital and a south-western major trauma centre. A convenience sample of 62 alert, cooperative adult female ED patients provided written informed consent. The indications for, and technique of catheterization, were at the discretion of the clinical staff. Pre- and immediate post-procedure pain was scored by the patient on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The primary outcome was the difference in VAS scores (post- minus pre-procedure) in millimetres. Values for each group were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges, statistical significance determined using the Mann-Whitney U-test.
RESULTS: The groups were well matched for age, indication for catheterization, pre-procedural pain score, catheter size and the number of catheterization attempts. Patients receiving lignocaine gel had a significantly lower median procedural pain score than patients receiving lubricating gel (6 mm vs 33 mm, P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Lignocaine gel substantially reduces the procedural pain of female urethral catheterization by comparison with use of a water-based lubricating gel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17655633     DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2007.00961.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med Australas        ISSN: 1742-6723            Impact factor:   2.151


  6 in total

Review 1.  The challenging pelvic examination.

Authors:  Carol K Bates; Nina Carroll; Jennifer Potter
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Randomized controlled trial of 2% lidocaine gel versus water-based lubricant for multi-channel urodynamics.

Authors:  Begüm Z Özel; Vanessa Sun; Avita Pahwa; Rebecca Nelken; Christina E Dancz
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Compliance With Guideline Statements for Urethral Catheterization in an Iranian Teaching Hospital.

Authors:  Negar Taleschian-Tabrizi; Fereshteh Farhadi; Neda Madani; Mohaddeseh Mokhtarkhani; Kasra Kolahdouzan; Sakineh Hajebrahimi
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2015-07-14

Review 4.  Management of procedural pain in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Na-Na Guo; Hong-Liang Wang; Ming-Yan Zhao; Jian-Guo Li; Hai-Tao Liu; Ting-Xin Zhang; Xin-Yu Zhang; Yi-Jun Chu; Kai-Jiang Yu; Chang-Song Wang
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 1.337

5.  Efficacy and Safety of Oxybuprocaine Hydrochloride Gel in Alleviating Pain during Male Urethral Catheterization: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Zhenkun Dong; Xutong Qu; Lu Zhang; Xueting Chen; Yuhang Dong; Hui Chen; Yan Cui
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 3.149

6.  Current trends in the management of difficult urinary catheterizations.

Authors:  Paul A Willette; Scott Coffield
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2012-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.