scholarly journals Methemoglobinemia Due to Local Anesthesia with Low-Dose Prilocaine

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZENO GAIGL ◽  
CORNELIA S. SEITZ ◽  
AXEL TRAUTMANN
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Low Dose

scholarly journals Adding Dexmedetomidine to Articaine Increases the Latency of Thermal Antinociception in Rats

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-78
Author(s):  
Yukako Tsutsui ◽  
Katsuhisa Sunada
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Cardiovascular Effects ◽  
Radiant Heat ◽  
Plantar Surface ◽  
Withdrawal Latency ◽  
Male Wistar Rats ◽  
Low Toxicity

Articaine is a low-toxicity local anesthetic that is widely used in dentistry. Typically, epinephrine is added to prolong the duration of articaine local anesthesia; however, epinephrine exhibits adverse effects. Low-dose dexmedetomidine (DEX), an α2-adrenoreceptor agonist, reportedly prolongs local anesthesia without notable adverse cardiovascular effects. The purpose of this study was to assess whether a combination of low-dose DEX and articaine would provide a low-toxicity local anesthetic option for dental procedures without adverse cardiovascular effects. Thus, this study investigated whether DEX could prolong the local anesthetic effect of articaine using a rat model of pain. Adult male Wistar rats (N = 44; 11 per group) received a 50-μL subcutaneous injection into the plantar surface of the hind paws; injections were composed of either normal saline, 4% articaine (2 mg articaine), combined 5 μg/kg DEX and 4% articaine (1.25 μg DEX + 2 mg articaine), or combined epinephrine (1:100,000) and 4% articaine (0.9 μg epinephrine + 2 mg articaine). Subsequent acute pain perception was determined by paw withdrawal movement in response to infrared radiant heat stimulation of the plantar region. Paw withdrawal latency was tested at 5-minute intervals. Paw withdrawal latency values at 35 and 40 minutes were 3.83 ± 1.76 and 3.29 ± 1.43 seconds for articaine alone, 7.89 ± 2.72 and 7.25 ± 3.37 seconds for DEX and articaine, and 8.95 ± 2.28 and 8.17 ± 3.01 seconds for epinephrine and articaine. DEX prolonged the paw withdrawal latency of articaine for up to 35 minutes (p = .015) but not 40 minutes after injection (p = .052) when compared to articaine alone. The combination of DEX and articaine can provide effective local anesthesia for up to 35 minutes after injection.

scholarly journals The Impact of Pain Control on Invasive Clinical Procedure on Children with Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5827-5827
Author(s):  
Jiayi WANG ◽  
Yingyi He ◽  
Zhimin Liang ◽  
Tiezhen Ye ◽  
Hui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Anesthesia Group ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Group D

Abstract Background: Palliative care is becoming more and more important for systemic cancer treatment in developed countries, while this remains infamous topic in developing countries, such as in China. Contemporary treatment strategies have greatly contributed to the improved outcome in childhood cancer patients, survivorship comes at the cost of developing some treatment-related health condition, such as pain-related depression, chronic pain etc. Thus, developing a well-tolerated pain control methods is of great importance within the cancer treatment. Objective: To evaluate the impact and outcome of different pain control applications on invasive procedure in children with leukemia, and record the adverse reactions. Methods: The enrollment of childhood leukemia patients in our hospital from November 2011 to November 2016 were divided into four groups, that is successively midazolam + local anesthesia (group A), midazolam + ketamine +local anesthesia (group B), midazolam + fentanyl + local anesthesia (group C), and fentanyl + propofol + local anesthesia (group D). The efficacy and adverse reactions were systemically recorded. The inter-group diffferences were calculated using x2 test. Results: No significancewas observed in age, gender, and disease distribution in these four groups by ANOVA ONEWAY analysis. The sedation outcome is more pronunced in group D than others. Also, the quality of procedural pain control in group D was the best (P<0.01). In terms of the analgesic effect, group B and D were better than that group A and C. There was significant difference in Hallucination was more easily detected in group B and C. Systemic recovery was delayed in group B other than group A, C, and D. Basing on the survey, we did found that the family members were more willing to accept pain control treatment for their sick kids under the safety assurance. The compliance was significantly improved in group D. Conclusion: Upon adequate auxiliary breathing preparation and rigorous monitor, propofol combined with low-dose fentanyl was the best sedative/analgesic option for pain control within leukemia patients receiving invasive procedure.The outcome of propofol combined with low-dose fentanyl wasvery safe, satisfactory and compliable. Up to now, this study is the first pain control study for invasive procedure in China mainland, it deserves being paid attention. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Methemoglobinemia Due to Local Anesthesia with Low-Dose Prilocaine

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-169
Author(s):  
ZENO GAIGL ◽  
CORNELIA S. SEITZ ◽  
AXEL TRAUTMANN
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Low Dose

Low-Dose Propofol Infusion for Sedation during Local Anesthesia

2002 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 956-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hee-Dong Yoon ◽  
Eul-Sik Yoon ◽  
Eun-Sang Dhong ◽  
Seung-Ha Park ◽  
Seung-Kyu Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Low Dose

scholarly journals Addition of Dexmedetomidine to Low Dose Solution of Lidocaine for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia A Randomized Study

JMS SKIMS ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
Ghulam Mohammed Mir ◽  
Firdose Shafi Shiekh ◽  
Arif Nazir
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Postoperative Analgesia ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Tourniquet Pain ◽  
Intravenous Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Recovery Times

Background and Aims: Intravenous Regional Anesthesia (IVRA) provides analgesia of distal part of limb by intravenous injection of local anesthesia in to the vein of the same limb, while the circulation to the limb is occluded by application of tourniquet. However, IVRAis limited by local anesthesia toxicity, tourniquet pain and absence of postoperative analgesia. Various additives to local anesthetics such as ketamine, clonidine, opiods, NSAIDs are used to address these issues. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Dexmedetomidine to low dose Lidocaine solution for IVRA.Patients and Methods: A prospective, randomized double blind study was conducted on 60 patients divided in to two groups of thirty each; Group I patients received 40 ml of Lidocaine 0.25% while Group II patients received 40 ml of 0.25% of lidocaine mixed with I mcg/kg of dexmedetomidine. The motor and sensory block onset and recovery times were assessed. Tourniquet pain and sedation score were assessed intraoperatively and postoperatively.Results: Sensory and motor block onset times were shorter and recovery times were prolonged in Dexmedetomidine group. The quality of anesthesia was better in the Dexmedetomidine group and the fentanyl dose required was also lower in the dexmedetomidine group. There was a significant difference in the postoperative analgesia time which was demonstrated by less use of intramuscular diclofenac in dexmedetomidine group.Conclusions: A safe intravenous dose of lidocaine can be used for IVRA for superficial hand surgery, and the addition of I mcg /kg dexmedetomidine shortened the onset times for both sensory and motor blockade and improved the quality of anesthesia, with prolonged postoperative analgesia time. By adding dexmedetomidine we were able to reduce the dose of lidocaine to 0.25% concentration without compromising analgesia. JMS 2016; 19(1):21-25

scholarly journals Pre-emptive low-dose ketamine with local anesthesia reduces postoperative morbidity after third molar surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-270
Author(s):  
Shaimaa Mohsen Refahee ◽  
◽  
Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi ◽  
Ahmed Saleh Yehya Alkhutari ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Quality Evidence

Objective: This review addresses a clinical research question related to lower third molar surgery (L3MS): does the combination of pre-emptive low-dose ketamine with local anesthesia (KLA) reduce postoperative complications compared with local anesthesia (LA) alone? Material and methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify eligible articles by electronic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO Library, Web of Science and grey literature through June 2019 without data or language restrictions. We analyzed all randomized controlled clinical studies (RCTs) comparing use of KLA with use of LA in L3MS regarding pain, swelling, and trismus outcomes. The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: Five RCTs encompassing 230 extraction sites (KLA = 115, LA = 115) were included in this study. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to synthesize the results. The data show that there were significant differences between the two groups in post-operative pain (SMD -1.464, 95% CI -1.683 to -0.949, p= 0.001) and swelling (SMD -0.450, 95% CI -0.758 to -0.142, p= 0.004, all low quality evidence). However, there was no significant difference in the trismus (SMD -0.754, CI -1.487 to -0.022, p = 0.043, very low quality evidence). Conclusion: The combination of pre-emptive low-dose ketamine with LA significantly decreased pain and swelling within the first 24 hours after L3MS compared with the control group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document