2022Journal of Dermatological TreatmentRequires access

Comparison of the onset, depth, and duration of cutaneous anesthesia between topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA creams: a randomized, intraindividual, comparative trial

Nichchanun Junputipong, Salinee Rojhirunsakool, Poonnapa Deewongkij, Nanticha Kamanamool, Montree Udompataikul

Open publisher page 10 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) is an effective cutaneous anesthetic, although its application is time consuming and poses a risk of methemoglobinemia. Currently, the efficacy of topical 10% lidocaine cream is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset, anesthesia depth, and duration of topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA cream. METHODS: The randomized, split-body, comparative trial performed on 40 participants who received a topical 10% lidocaine cream or EMLA on forearms for 15-150 min. Pain was stimulated using a 21-gauge needle insertion and evaluated with the Verbal Pain Score. Adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: < .001). For acceptable pain at 4-mm depth, the minimal application times were 40.88 and 45.38 min of EMLA and 10% lidocaine creams, respectively. With 60/120-min application, the maximal needle-insertion depths with acceptable pain were 6.61/9.47 mm (EMLA) and 6.01/8.94 mm (10% lidocaine). EMLA's anesthetic effect showed an early increase after removal which was sustained for 60-90 min. Both creams caused adverse effects, with EMLA showing higher proportions, although the differences were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of EMLA was superior to 10% lidocaine cream, especially regarding anesthesia onset and duration.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: The eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) is an effective cutaneous anesthetic, although its application is time consuming and poses a risk of methemoglobinemia. Currently, the efficacy of topical 10% lidocaine cream is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset, anesthesia depth, and duration of topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA cream. METHODS: The randomized, split-body, comparative trial performed on 40 participants who received a topical 10% lidocaine cream or EMLA on forearms for 15-150 min. Pain was stimulated using a 21-gauge needle insertion and evaluated with the Verbal Pain Score. Adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: < .001). For acceptable pain at 4-mm depth, the minimal application times were 40.88 and 45.38 min of EMLA and 10% lidocaine creams, respectively. With 60/120-min application, the maximal needle-insertion depths with acceptable pain were 6.61/9.47 mm (EMLA) and 6.01/8.94 mm (10% lidocaine). EMLA's anesthetic effect showed an early increase after removal which was sustained for 60-90 min. Both creams caused adverse effects, with EMLA showing higher proportions, although the differences were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of EMLA was superior to 10% lidocaine cream, especially regarding anesthesia onset and duration.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: The eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) is an effective cutaneous anesthetic, although its application is time consuming and poses a risk of methemoglobinemia. Currently, the efficacy of topical 10% lidocaine cream is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset, anesthesia depth, and duration of topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA cream. METHODS: The randomized, split-body, comparative trial performed on 40 participants who received a topical 10% lidocaine cream or EMLA on forearms for 15-150 min. Pain was stimulated using a 21-gauge needle insertion and evaluated with the Verbal Pain Score. Adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: < .001). For acceptable pain at 4-mm depth, the minimal application times were 40.88 and 45.38 min of EMLA and 10% lidocaine creams, respectively. With 60/120-min application, the maximal needle-insertion depths with acceptable pain were 6.61/9.47 mm (EMLA) and 6.01/8.94 mm (10% lidocaine). EMLA's anesthetic effect showed an early increase after removal which was sustained for 60-90 min. Both creams caused adverse effects, with EMLA showing higher proportions, although the differences were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of EMLA was superior to 10% lidocaine cream, especially regarding anesthesia onset and duration.

Key concepts: Lidocaine, Medicine, Topical anesthetic, Anesthesia, Local anesthetic, Prilocaine, Anesthetic, Adverse effect

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of the onset, depth, and duration of cutaneous anesthesia between topical 10% lidocaine and EMLA creams: a randomized, intraindividual, comparative trial — Research Paper | ScholarLens