Literature DB >> 19730304

The impact of topical lidocaine on pain level assessment during and after vacuum-assisted closure dressing changes: a double-blind, prospective, randomized study.

Mieczyslawa Franczyk1, Robert F Lohman, Jayant P Agarwal, Gita Rupani, Melinda Drum, Lawrence J Gottlieb.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vacuum-assisted closure dressing changes are frequently painful. The authors hypothesized that administering topical lidocaine into the vacuum-assisted closure sponge would decrease pain during dressing changes.
METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, prospective study was performed on patients (n = 70) undergoing vacuum-assisted closure dressing changes at a single institution between October of 2003 and June of 2005. Patients were randomized to receive either 0.2% lidocaine or 0.9% saline administered through the vacuum-assisted closure tubing into the foam dressing 30 minutes before changing the dressing. All patients received morphine sulfate ad libitum. Pain scores were assessed according to a 0 to 10 numeric pain scale.
RESULTS: Wound characteristics and patient demographics were similar for both groups. Patients receiving lidocaine reported less pain than control patients during the dressing change (4.3 versus 6.3; p = 0.005) and immediately after (2.4 versus 4.7; p < 0.001) the dressing change. Thirty minutes after the dressing change, pain scores were similar in both groups. Thirty minutes after the dressing change, more patients in the lidocaine group requested small doses of narcotics (>3 mg morphine equivalent) than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: During the initial vacuum-assisted closure dressing change, 0.2% lidocaine administered through the suction tubing led to a reduction in pain reported by the patients in the authors' study. The duration of lidocaine administered in this fashion may be fairly short, because more patients in this group began to request small doses of opiates 30 minutes after the dressing change. Thus, lidocaine may improve patient comfort during vacuum-assisted closure therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19730304     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b038b4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  4 in total

1.  Clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy in challenging wounds.

Authors:  Umut Tuncel; Ünal Erkorkmaz; Aydın Turan
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds.

Authors:  Theresa Hurd; Paul Chadwick; Julien Cote; John Cockwill; Trevor R Mole; Jennifer M Smith
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  The effect of regional block over pain levels during vacuum-assisted wound closure.

Authors:  Kemal Findikcioglu; Billur Sezgin; Basar Kaya; Zerrin Ozkose; Suhan Ayhan
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Use of bacteria- and fungus-binding mesh in negative pressure wound therapy provides significant granulation tissue without tissue ingrowth.

Authors:  Malin Malmsjö; Sandra Lindstedt; Richard Ingemansson; Lotta Gustafsson
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2014-01-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.