OBJECTIVE: To determine if topical administration of local anesthesia, applied to fresh skin-harvest sites, reduces pain and analgesic requirements after surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Nonopioid treatments for pain after therapeutic procedures on patients with burns have become popular because of the side effects associated with narcotics. The topical administration of local anesthesia originally offered little advantage because of poor epidermal penetration. METHODS: This study compares 2% lidocaine with 0.5% bupivacaine or saline, topically applied after skin harvest, to determine what effect this may have on pain and narcotic use. Sixty patients with partial- or full-thickness burns to approximately 10% to 15% of their body were randomly divided into three groups: group 1 received normal saline, group 2 had 0.5% bupivacaine, and group 3 had 2% lidocaine sprayed onto areas immediately after skin harvest. Blood samples were subsequently obtained to measure concentrations of the local anesthetic. Hemodynamic variables after surgery, wake-up times, emetic symptoms, pain, and narcotic use were compared. RESULTS:Higher heart rates were noted in the placebo group than in those receiving lidocaine or bupivacaine. No differences were noted in recovery from anesthesia or emetic symptoms. Pain scores were lower and 24-hour narcotic use was less in patients who received lidocaine. Plasma lidocaine levels were greater than bupivacaine at all time points measured. CONCLUSIONS:Topical lidocaine applied to skin-harvest sites produced an analgesic effect that reduced narcotic requirements compared with patients who received bupivacaine or placebo. Local anesthetic solutions aerosolized onto skin-harvest sites did not affect healing or produce toxic blood concentrations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine if topical administration of local anesthesia, applied to fresh skin-harvest sites, reduces pain and analgesic requirements after surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Nonopioid treatments for pain after therapeutic procedures on patients with burns have become popular because of the side effects associated with narcotics. The topical administration of local anesthesia originally offered little advantage because of poor epidermal penetration. METHODS: This study compares 2% lidocaine with 0.5% bupivacaine or saline, topically applied after skin harvest, to determine what effect this may have on pain and narcotic use. Sixty patients with partial- or full-thickness burns to approximately 10% to 15% of their body were randomly divided into three groups: group 1 received normal saline, group 2 had 0.5% bupivacaine, and group 3 had 2% lidocaine sprayed onto areas immediately after skin harvest. Blood samples were subsequently obtained to measure concentrations of the local anesthetic. Hemodynamic variables after surgery, wake-up times, emetic symptoms, pain, and narcotic use were compared. RESULTS: Higher heart rates were noted in the placebo group than in those receiving lidocaine or bupivacaine. No differences were noted in recovery from anesthesia or emetic symptoms. Pain scores were lower and 24-hour narcotic use was less in patients who received lidocaine. Plasma lidocaine levels were greater than bupivacaine at all time points measured. CONCLUSIONS: Topical lidocaine applied to skin-harvest sites produced an analgesic effect that reduced narcotic requirements compared with patients who received bupivacaine or placebo. Local anesthetic solutions aerosolized onto skin-harvest sites did not affect healing or produce toxic blood concentrations.
Authors: Kathleen S Romanowski; Joshua Carson; Kate Pape; Eileen Bernal; Sam Sharar; Shelley Wiechman; Damien Carter; Yuk Ming Liu; Stephanie Nitzschke; Paul Bhalla; Jeffrey Litt; Rene Przkora; Bruce Friedman; Stephanie Popiak; James Jeng; Colleen M Ryan; Victor Joe Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 1.845