Safety and Pharmacokinetics of EMLA in the Treatment of Postburn Pruritus in Pediatric Patients: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and pharmacokinetics of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) used to ameliorate postburn pruritus after application onto newly formed, intact skin in children. EMLA was applied once to an itchy site where healed skin had formed. Serial blood samples were collected to measure lidocaine, prilocaine, o-toluidine, and methemoglobin. Maximal plasma concentration, minimal plasma concentration, time to achieve the maximal plasma concentration, elimination half-life, and area under the concentration-time curve were calculated. Vital signs, oxygen saturation, clinical signs of hypoxia, and itch intensity were measured. Five children had 15.7 +/- 2.54 g (+/- SD) of EMLA applied to a skin surface area of 93.0 +/- 37.0 cm2. Lidocaine and prilocaine concentrations were below toxic levels; o-toluidine was not detected. Methemoglobin remained between 1 and 3%; patients did not exhibit any clinical signs of hypoxia. Mean oxygen saturation was 98.9 +/- 0.01%. The mean number of pruritic episodes and antihistamine breakthrough doses were greater in the 2 prestudy control days compared with study day 3 (P = 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively). Skin at the site of EMLA application remained anesthetized for 12 to 13 hours. In this small pilot study, EMLA seems to be a safe, novel treatment for postburn pruritus in burned children when applied to newly healed, intact skin.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".