EMLA Cream is an Effective Topical Anesthetic for Bronchoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: EMLA cream (AstraZeneca Inc, Canada) (1:1 eutectic mixture of lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%) has traditionally been used for topical anesthesia of the skin. Recent reports of EMLA's use for anesthesia of the oral mucosa suggest an application in topical anesthesia for bronchoscopy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the amount of local anesthetic administered during bronchoscopy; to assess the time required to obtain topical anesthesia; to assess the quality of the topical anesthesia as described by bronchoscopists; and to document any complications. METHODS: Fifty-seven unpremedicated patients had 4 mL of EMLA cream applied to the posterior third of their tongues on arrival in the bronchoscopy suite. Liquid lidocaine was applied through the bronchoscope for laryngeal anesthesia. RESULTS: The mean time from the application of EMLA cream to insertion of the bronchoscope was 5.10+/-0.48 min. Fifty-six patients (98.2%) required no supplemental anesthesia. Bronchoscopy conditions were described as 'excellent' in 55 cases (96.5%) and 'good' in the remaining two cases (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: EMLA is an effective alternative for oropharyngeal topical anesthesia that is well-tolerated by patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".