Comparison of EMLA and lidocaine iontophoresis for cannulation analgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetic cream and lidocaine iontophoresis are effective in providing analgesia for peripheral venous cannulation with small gauge cannulae in adults and children. The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of the two techniques directly in patients using larger cannulae. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, controlled study we compared the two techniques directly. Twenty-eight patients had the eutectic mixture of local anaesthetic cream applied to the dorsum of one hand for 60 min followed by sham iontophoresis (group EMLA); the other hand had a sham cream applied for 60 min followed by 10 min of 2 mA iontophoresis with lidocaine 4% and epinephrine 1 in 50,000 (group iontophoresis). Within 5 min of completion of iontophoresis an anaesthetist, unaware of treatment allocation, inserted 18-G venous cannulae into veins of both hands. The patient then scored the amount of pain on cannulation using a 10 point verbal rating scale. RESULTS: Eight patients were excluded from analysis due to failed cannulation (two group EMLA, two group iontophoresis), intolerable burning sensation from iontophoresis (one), protocol violation (one), and changes in surgical schedule (two). Pain scores were lower for the EMLA treated hand than for the iontophoresis side (median (range) 1 (0-7) vs. 3 (0-6); P = 0.023). Erythema and paraesthesia were common but short lived on the iontophoresis side. CONCLUSIONS: Although lidocaine iontophoresis is effective more quickly than the eutectic mixture of local anaesthetic cream, the superior quality of analgesia produced by the eutectic mixture in this study should be borne in mind if these treatments are used electively.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".