OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that minimally invasive microneedles cause less pain during injection of lidocaine, but induce local anesthesia in humans with the same rapid onset and efficacy as intradermal lidocaine injection using hypodermic needles. METHODS: This study was a randomized, single-blinded, within participants, controlled design. Hollow, 500-μm long microneedles were used to inject lidocaine to the forearm of 15 human participants. The associated pain was recorded using a visual analog (VAS) scale. The area and depth of numbness were determined at 0, 7.5, and 15 minutes after injection. Lidocaine was also injected to the dorsum of the hand near a vein, followed by placement of an intravenous catheter and measurement of associated pain. A 26-gauge intradermal bevel hypodermic needle similarly administered lidocaine on the opposite forearm/hand to serve as the positive control. RESULTS:VAS pain scores revealed that injection using microneedles was significantly less painful than hypodermic needles for both the forearm and dorsum of the hand injections. However, there was no significant difference in the area or depth of the resulting numbness between the 2 treatment methods at any time point (0, 7.5, and 15 min) indicating that microneedles had immediate onset and were as effective as hypodermic needles in inducing dermal anesthesia. Moreover, insertion of an intravenous catheter immediately after lidocaine injection on the dorsum of the hand led to comparable pain scores for the microneedle and hypodermic needle treated sites, further confirming efficacy of microneedles in inducing rapid local anesthesia. Lastly, 77% of the participants preferred microneedles and 80% indicated that they did not consider microneedles to be painful. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates for the first time that microneedle-based lidocaine injection is as rapid and as effective as hypodermic injection in inducing local anesthesia while resulting in significantly less pain during injection.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that minimally invasive microneedles cause less pain during injection of lidocaine, but induce local anesthesia in humans with the same rapid onset and efficacy as intradermal lidocaine injection using hypodermic needles. METHODS: This study was a randomized, single-blinded, within participants, controlled design. Hollow, 500-μm long microneedles were used to inject lidocaine to the forearm of 15 humanparticipants. The associated pain was recorded using a visual analog (VAS) scale. The area and depth of numbness were determined at 0, 7.5, and 15 minutes after injection. Lidocaine was also injected to the dorsum of the hand near a vein, followed by placement of an intravenous catheter and measurement of associated pain. A 26-gauge intradermal bevel hypodermic needle similarly administered lidocaine on the opposite forearm/hand to serve as the positive control. RESULTS: VAS pain scores revealed that injection using microneedles was significantly less painful than hypodermic needles for both the forearm and dorsum of the hand injections. However, there was no significant difference in the area or depth of the resulting numbness between the 2 treatment methods at any time point (0, 7.5, and 15 min) indicating that microneedles had immediate onset and were as effective as hypodermic needles in inducing dermal anesthesia. Moreover, insertion of an intravenous catheter immediately after lidocaine injection on the dorsum of the hand led to comparable pain scores for the microneedle and hypodermic needle treated sites, further confirming efficacy of microneedles in inducing rapid local anesthesia. Lastly, 77% of the participants preferred microneedles and 80% indicated that they did not consider microneedles to be painful. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates for the first time that microneedle-based lidocaine injection is as rapid and as effective as hypodermic injection in inducing local anesthesia while resulting in significantly less pain during injection.
Authors: Raja K Sivamani; Boris Stoeber; Gabriel C Wu; Hongbo Zhai; Dorian Liepmann; Howard Maibach Journal: Skin Res Technol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Robert Arnou; Giancarlo Icardi; Marijke De Decker; Arvydas Ambrozaitis; Marie-Pierre Kazek; Françoise Weber; Pierre Van Damme Journal: Vaccine Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Michael J Cima; Heejin Lee; Karen Daniel; Laura M Tanenbaum; Aikaterini Mantzavinou; Kevin C Spencer; Qunya Ong; Jay C Sy; John Santini; Carl M Schoellhammer; Daniel Blankschtein; Robert S Langer Journal: J Control Release Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 9.776