Penile Absorption of EMLA Cream in Piglets: Implications for Use of EMLA in Neonatal Circumcision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EMLA (eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine) cream is currently not recommended for use in infants < 1 month of age because of the potential risk of methemoglobinemia as a result of the o-toluidine metabolite of prilocaine. We studied bioavailability and changes in methemoglobin levels following topical penile exposure to 1 g of EMLA cream for 1 hour in piglets. Lidocaine, prilocaine, and o-toluidine concentrations were measured simultaneously using a high-performance liquid chromatography method. The systemic bioavailability of EMLA was low: 4.0 +/- (SD) 4.7% for lidocaine (range 0-13.6; n = 8) and 7.2 +/- 5.7% for prilocaine (range 0-14.5; n = 8). The ratio between exposure to o-toluidine with EMLA versus intravenous administration (i.e., AUCEMLA/AUCIV; see text) was also low: 4.2 +/- 9.3% (range 0-28.6; n = 9). The mean maximum methemoglobin value after intravenous administration was 1.23 +/- 0.64% (range 0.5-3.0; n = 12) and after penile application 0.99 +/- 0.36% (range 0.5-2.0; n = 12). The methemoglobin value was elevated significantly above baseline after intravenous administration (p = 0.03), but not after penile application of EMLA. These findings suggest that penile administration of 1 g of EMLA may be safe for neonatal circumcision, but further study is required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".