Safety of Lidocaine 15% and Prilocaine 5% Topical Ointment Used as Local Anesthesia for Intense Pulsed Light Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Literature cautions against applying lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% over an area larger than 300 cm(2). The area of the face, neck, and chest is 400 cm(2) or greater. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% topical anesthetic ointment used as anesthesia for intense pulsed light (IPL) treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% ointment was applied to the face only (n=10) for 30 +/- 15 minutes or to the face, neck, and chest (n=10) for a total of 60 +/- 15 minutes before IPL. Blood lidocaine and prilocaine levels were measured. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, blood was drawn 25.6 +/- 6.6 minutes after IPL was completed. In the face only group, the mean lidocaine level was 0.122 +/- 0.125 microg/mL, and the mean prilocaine level was 0.048 +/- 0.029 microg/mL. In the face, neck, and chest group, the mean lidocaine level was 0.272 +/- 0.208 microg/mL, and the mean prilocaine level was 0.087 +/- 0.060 microg/mL. No adverse events related to systemic toxicity were observed or reported to the nurse. At the 24-hour follow-up, no subject reported symptoms of systemic toxicity after leaving the clinic. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, topical lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% produces low levels of systemic absorption.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".