Lidocaine solution vs. lidocaine gel instillation for pain management during intravesical botulinum injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most Canadian urologists use lidocaine solution prior to botulinium toxin (BoNT) administration; however, this requires additional time. Our aim was to compare pain scores in patients undergoing office-based BoNT using lidocaine instillation and lidocaine gel vs. lidocaine gel alone. METHODS: All patients undergoing office-based intradetrusor BoNT between March 1 and September 1, 2022, were included. Group 1 received intravesical lidocaine solution (20 ml 2% lidocaine solution + 30 ml 0.9% normal saline) instillation for 30 minutes and lidocaine gel. Group 2 received lidocaine gel only. The Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNRS) was used to measure pain. Patient demographics were compared with t-test for continuous and Chi-squared for categorical variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare pain scores. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were included (mean age 61 years, 74.7% female, 58.2% with overactive bladder, and 30.4% receiving first treatment). Group 1 had 39 patients and group 2 had 40. There was no significant difference in pain scores between groups: group 1 median VNRS 3.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5) vs. group 2 median VNRS 4.0 (IQR 2.0) (p=0.11). No significant differences in pain scores were noted between groups based on sex, indication for treatment, or number of previous BoNT treatments (p>0.05). Post-procedural complications were low. Treatment failure did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine gel alone may be an acceptable analgesic alternative while improving availability and efficiency of treatment delivery. Our findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".