Michael E Chua1, Paul Nimrod B Firaza2, Jessica M Ming3, Jan Michael A Silangcruz4, Luis H Braga5, Armando J Lorenzo6. 1. The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; St. Luke's Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines. 2. Jose R. Reyes Memorial Center, Manila, Philippines. 3. The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. St. Luke's Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines. 5. McMaster Children's Hospital and McMaster University, London, Ontario, Canada. 6. The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: armando.lorenzo@sickkids.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of lidocaine gel vs nonanesthetic gel (NAG) in reducing transurethral bladder catheterization (TUBC) procedural pain in children. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature search was done using electronic medical databases and trial registries up to September 2016 with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and safety of lidocaine gel vs NAG in reducing TUBC-associated pain in children were screened, identified, and appraised. Risks of bias and study quality of the eligible trials were assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Various pain assessment scales from the included studies were extracted as mean differences and standard deviations for each treatment group. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were generated with 95% CIs for between-group difference estimation. Effect estimates were pooled using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed for different age groups. RESULTS: Five RCTs (with a total of 369 children) were included. Overall pooled effect estimates showed that compared with NAG, lidocaine gel has no significant benefit in decreasing TUBC-associated pain in children (SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.21). Effect estimates from 4 studies revealed no difference in pain reduction between the lidocaine gel and NAG in children aged <4 years (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.24). No serious adverse events from the lidocaine gel use were reported in any of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine gel does not appear to reduce TUBC pain compared with NAG, specifically in children aged <4 years. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016050018.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of lidocaine gel vs nonanesthetic gel (NAG) in reducing transurethral bladder catheterization (TUBC) procedural pain in children. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature search was done using electronic medical databases and trial registries up to September 2016 with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and safety of lidocaine gel vs NAG in reducing TUBC-associated pain in children were screened, identified, and appraised. Risks of bias and study quality of the eligible trials were assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Various pain assessment scales from the included studies were extracted as mean differences and standard deviations for each treatment group. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were generated with 95% CIs for between-group difference estimation. Effect estimates were pooled using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed for different age groups. RESULTS: Five RCTs (with a total of 369 children) were included. Overall pooled effect estimates showed that compared with NAG, lidocaine gel has no significant benefit in decreasing TUBC-associated pain in children (SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.21). Effect estimates from 4 studies revealed no difference in pain reduction between the lidocaine gel and NAG in children aged <4 years (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.24). No serious adverse events from the lidocaine gel use were reported in any of the studies. CONCLUSIONS:Lidocaine gel does not appear to reduce TUBC pain compared with NAG, specifically in children aged <4 years. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016050018.
Authors: Corrie E Chumpitazi; Cindy Chang; Zaza Atanelov; Ann M Dietrich; Samuel Hiu-Fung Lam; Emily Rose; Tim Ruttan; Sam Shahid; Michael J Stoner; Carmen Sulton; Mohsen Saidinejad Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2022-03-12