PURPOSE: There is no clear evidence that intraurethral lidocaine jelly decreases pain and/or makes rigid cystoscopy more tolerable for patients. Since lidocaine jelly is significantly more expensive than plain lubricant, we attempted to assess the true benefit of this agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized, prospective, double-blind study to compare the anesthetic effects of intraurethral 2% lidocaine jelly versus plain lubricant in patients undergoing rigid cystoscopy. Unlike previous studies, we ensured adequate urethral filling by using 30 cc of each agent and we waited 20 minutes after instillation of the agent before performing cystoscopy to allow adequate absorption. Cystoscopy was performed using a 17 to 21F rigid instrument. A total of 189 patients was entered into the study but 10 were excluded from analysis due to incomplete questionnaires. A 10-point scale (1-least to 10-most painful) was used to measure pain perception. RESULTS: In men pain perception was significantly decreased when lidocaine jelly was used (mean plus or minus standard error 3.00 +/- 0.21 versus 4.36 +/- 0.37 points, p = 0.002). In women there was no observed difference in pain perception when lidocaine jelly or plain lubricant was used (3.21 +/- 0.38 versus 3.11 +/- 0.30 points, p = 0.823). Patient race, performance of a related procedure, cystoscope size or history of cystoscopy did not significantly affect reported pain scores. There was a slight decrease in pain perception with increasing age (-0.23 +/- 0.10 points per decade, p = 0.021). The level of patient anxiety before cystoscopy was also significantly associated with pain perception (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Lidocaine jelly offers no advantage over plain lubricant in regard to pain control during rigid cystoscopy in women. However, when used in adequate amounts and allowed to dwell in the urethra for 20 minutes before cystoscopy, lidocaine jelly can significantly decrease pain in men.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: There is no clear evidence that intraurethral lidocaine jelly decreases pain and/or makes rigid cystoscopy more tolerable for patients. Since lidocaine jelly is significantly more expensive than plain lubricant, we attempted to assess the true benefit of this agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized, prospective, double-blind study to compare the anesthetic effects of intraurethral 2% lidocaine jelly versus plain lubricant in patients undergoing rigid cystoscopy. Unlike previous studies, we ensured adequate urethral filling by using 30 cc of each agent and we waited 20 minutes after instillation of the agent before performing cystoscopy to allow adequate absorption. Cystoscopy was performed using a 17 to 21F rigid instrument. A total of 189 patients was entered into the study but 10 were excluded from analysis due to incomplete questionnaires. A 10-point scale (1-least to 10-most painful) was used to measure pain perception. RESULTS: In menpain perception was significantly decreased when lidocaine jelly was used (mean plus or minus standard error 3.00 +/- 0.21 versus 4.36 +/- 0.37 points, p = 0.002). In women there was no observed difference in pain perception when lidocaine jelly or plain lubricant was used (3.21 +/- 0.38 versus 3.11 +/- 0.30 points, p = 0.823). Patient race, performance of a related procedure, cystoscope size or history of cystoscopy did not significantly affect reported pain scores. There was a slight decrease in pain perception with increasing age (-0.23 +/- 0.10 points per decade, p = 0.021). The level of patientanxiety before cystoscopy was also significantly associated with pain perception (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Lidocaine jelly offers no advantage over plain lubricant in regard to pain control during rigid cystoscopy in women. However, when used in adequate amounts and allowed to dwell in the urethra for 20 minutes before cystoscopy, lidocaine jelly can significantly decrease pain in men.
Authors: Michael Müntener; Markus Fatzer; Valentin Praz; Urs Straumann; Räto T Strebel; Hubert John Journal: World J Urol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hyun Ju Kim; Jong Wook Kim; Hong Seok Park; Du Geon Moon; Jeong Gu Lee; Mi Mi Oh Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Lieschen H Quiroz; S Abbas Shobeiri; Mikio A Nihira; Jordan Brady; Robert A Wild Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 2.894