Cooled (4ºC) lidocaine during office cystoscopy improves patient satisfaction and comfort: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Office-based flexible cystoscopy is often associated with considerable discomfort in male patients. We devised this study to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of cooling intraurethral lidocaine jelly to 4°C prior to use in office-based cystoscopy in an effort to reduce male patient discomfort. METHODS: A total of 600 male patients scheduled for office diagnostic cystoscopy were enrolled and randomized into three groups for a prospectively controlled, double-blind study. Each group received one of the three methods of intraurethral lubrication: plain room temperature lubricant (control) (CON), room temperature lidocaine (LI), or lidocaine at 4°C (LI4°C). Perceived pain was recorded on a Likert visual analog scale (VAS) of 1-10 where 0=no pain and 10=excruciating pain. Kruskal-Wallis test assessed the efficacy of cooling lidocaine compared to room temperature lidocaine and control. Subjective pain reporting was corroborated with instantaneous objective pulse rate recording eliminating perception bias. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in cystoscopy duration between all groups. Mean pain scores (mean ± standard deviation) were 4.05±0.91, 2.74±1.01, and 1.8±0.84, respectively, for groups CON, LI, and LI4°C (p=0.02). There was a 32.34% reduction in the mean pain score of LI and a further reduction of 34.3% was achieved in LI4°C when compared to CON. Body mass index (BMI) and prostate weight had a significant positive correlation with pain score, whereas no such correlation was found with age. CONCLUSIONS: Cooling lidocaine to 4°C provides additional analgesic benefit in men undergoing office cystoscopy and increases compliance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".