A controlled, randomised trial comparing single to multiple application lidocaine analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing urethral catheterisation procedures

Aims and objectives.  The aim of this study was to evaluate if discomfort levels are statistically significant when two different topical and intraurethral precatheterisation analgesia strategies are used. The primary objective of this research project was to examine methods to decrease pain experie...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical nursing 2010-03, Vol.19 (5-6), p.744-748
Hauptverfasser: Boots, Brenda K, Edmundson, Elizabeth E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 748
container_issue 5-6
container_start_page 744
container_title Journal of clinical nursing
container_volume 19
creator Boots, Brenda K
Edmundson, Elizabeth E
description Aims and objectives.  The aim of this study was to evaluate if discomfort levels are statistically significant when two different topical and intraurethral precatheterisation analgesia strategies are used. The primary objective of this research project was to examine methods to decrease pain experienced by paediatric cystogram patients. Background.  Paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisations frequently report discomfort. To alleviate catheterisation discomfort in children, some institutions have either used sedation techniques or topical analgesia strategies. Standardisation of topical anaesthetic application prior to paediatric urinary catheterisation has not been demonstrated in the research literature. Design.  A prospective, single‐blind, randomised, controlled trial. Methods.  The trial was performed with infants and children aged two months–eight years. The first group received one application of lidocaine five minutes prior to catheterisation. The control group received two applications, spaced five minutes apart prior to catheterisation. The FLACC pain score, as the primary outcome variable, was assessed at the time of the catheterisation. Secondary outcome variables including pre‐ and postcatheterisation heart rate and parental perception were also measured. Conclusions.  Two hundred children between two months–eight years of age were randomly assigned for study inclusion with 91 patients enrolled into the two application groups and 109 patients into the single application group. No statistically significant differences (p = 0·779) in the mean FLACC pain score at the time of the catheterisation between the intervention (single application) group (mean = 3·30) and the control (two application) group (mean = 3·39), heart rate or parental perceptions were observed. Relevance to clinical practice.  Topical and intraurethral lidocaine analgesia strategies prior to urinary catheterisation provide an important tool in reducing discomfort for paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisation procedures. This study confirms that multiple applications of intraurethral lidocaine gel add little additional benefits in reducing discomfort over single intraurethral application techniques.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03113.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_764407638</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1966350461</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5163-70ee09fd65076c6322443d75a72ed108097c42fed4f6b7c5e48639cc893245c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhiMEokvhLyCLCxey-CO2kwtSFUGhKi0HPnqzXHt268Ubp7Yjtj-Hf4rDlj1wAR_skeedZzTzVhUieEnKeb1ZEiZ4TSWmS4pxt8SMELbcPagWh8TDaoE7QWuChTyqnqS0wZgwStnj6ohijktJu6h-niAThhyD92BfoagHG7YugUU5Ou1Lcjvq6IY1SuXygHJA28lnN5ZYj6N3RmcXBuSdDUa7ofwO2q8hOY3cgEYN1unCMiXMDoac0DRYiOswQ6cI-SbOfXS-gQzRpT1ujMGALen0tHq00j7Bs_v3uPry7u3n_n19fnn6oT85rw0ngtUSA-BuZQXHUhhRBm0aZiXXkoIluMWdNA1dgW1W4loaDk0rWGdM2zHacMPYcfVyzy2tbydIWZU9GPBeDxCmpKRomoJm7b-VjBHMG8GL8sVfyk2YYtlPUpQVC3hLRRG1e5GJIaUIKzVGt9XxThGsZrvVRs2uqtlVNdutftutdqX0-T1_ut6CPRT-8bcI3uwFP5yHu_8Gq7PL_mIOC6DeA1zKsDsAdPyuhGSSq28Xp-rs41VPP1316iv7BYZwyzo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>235005826</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A controlled, randomised trial comparing single to multiple application lidocaine analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing urethral catheterisation procedures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Boots, Brenda K ; Edmundson, Elizabeth E</creator><creatorcontrib>Boots, Brenda K ; Edmundson, Elizabeth E</creatorcontrib><description>Aims and objectives.  The aim of this study was to evaluate if discomfort levels are statistically significant when two different topical and intraurethral precatheterisation analgesia strategies are used. The primary objective of this research project was to examine methods to decrease pain experienced by paediatric cystogram patients. Background.  Paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisations frequently report discomfort. To alleviate catheterisation discomfort in children, some institutions have either used sedation techniques or topical analgesia strategies. Standardisation of topical anaesthetic application prior to paediatric urinary catheterisation has not been demonstrated in the research literature. Design.  A prospective, single‐blind, randomised, controlled trial. Methods.  The trial was performed with infants and children aged two months–eight years. The first group received one application of lidocaine five minutes prior to catheterisation. The control group received two applications, spaced five minutes apart prior to catheterisation. The FLACC pain score, as the primary outcome variable, was assessed at the time of the catheterisation. Secondary outcome variables including pre‐ and postcatheterisation heart rate and parental perception were also measured. Conclusions.  Two hundred children between two months–eight years of age were randomly assigned for study inclusion with 91 patients enrolled into the two application groups and 109 patients into the single application group. No statistically significant differences (p = 0·779) in the mean FLACC pain score at the time of the catheterisation between the intervention (single application) group (mean = 3·30) and the control (two application) group (mean = 3·39), heart rate or parental perceptions were observed. Relevance to clinical practice.  Topical and intraurethral lidocaine analgesia strategies prior to urinary catheterisation provide an important tool in reducing discomfort for paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisation procedures. This study confirms that multiple applications of intraurethral lidocaine gel add little additional benefits in reducing discomfort over single intraurethral application techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-1067</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2702</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03113.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20500318</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>analgesia ; Anesthesia ; Anesthetics, Local - administration &amp; dosage ; Anesthetics, Local - therapeutic use ; catheterisation ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; children ; Clinical trials ; Female ; Humans ; Infant ; Intubation ; lidocaine ; Lidocaine - administration &amp; dosage ; Lidocaine - therapeutic use ; Male ; Nursing ; Pain management ; Pediatric Nursing ; Pediatrics ; Prospective Studies ; urethral ; Urinary Catheterization - nursing ; Urogenital system</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical nursing, 2010-03, Vol.19 (5-6), p.744-748</ispartof><rights>2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Mar 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5163-70ee09fd65076c6322443d75a72ed108097c42fed4f6b7c5e48639cc893245c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5163-70ee09fd65076c6322443d75a72ed108097c42fed4f6b7c5e48639cc893245c33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2702.2009.03113.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2702.2009.03113.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27922,27923,45572,45573</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20500318$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boots, Brenda K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edmundson, Elizabeth E</creatorcontrib><title>A controlled, randomised trial comparing single to multiple application lidocaine analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing urethral catheterisation procedures</title><title>Journal of clinical nursing</title><addtitle>J Clin Nurs</addtitle><description>Aims and objectives.  The aim of this study was to evaluate if discomfort levels are statistically significant when two different topical and intraurethral precatheterisation analgesia strategies are used. The primary objective of this research project was to examine methods to decrease pain experienced by paediatric cystogram patients. Background.  Paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisations frequently report discomfort. To alleviate catheterisation discomfort in children, some institutions have either used sedation techniques or topical analgesia strategies. Standardisation of topical anaesthetic application prior to paediatric urinary catheterisation has not been demonstrated in the research literature. Design.  A prospective, single‐blind, randomised, controlled trial. Methods.  The trial was performed with infants and children aged two months–eight years. The first group received one application of lidocaine five minutes prior to catheterisation. The control group received two applications, spaced five minutes apart prior to catheterisation. The FLACC pain score, as the primary outcome variable, was assessed at the time of the catheterisation. Secondary outcome variables including pre‐ and postcatheterisation heart rate and parental perception were also measured. Conclusions.  Two hundred children between two months–eight years of age were randomly assigned for study inclusion with 91 patients enrolled into the two application groups and 109 patients into the single application group. No statistically significant differences (p = 0·779) in the mean FLACC pain score at the time of the catheterisation between the intervention (single application) group (mean = 3·30) and the control (two application) group (mean = 3·39), heart rate or parental perceptions were observed. Relevance to clinical practice.  Topical and intraurethral lidocaine analgesia strategies prior to urinary catheterisation provide an important tool in reducing discomfort for paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisation procedures. This study confirms that multiple applications of intraurethral lidocaine gel add little additional benefits in reducing discomfort over single intraurethral application techniques.</description><subject>analgesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Local - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Local - therapeutic use</subject><subject>catheterisation</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>children</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>lidocaine</subject><subject>Lidocaine - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Lidocaine - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Pain management</subject><subject>Pediatric Nursing</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>urethral</subject><subject>Urinary Catheterization - nursing</subject><subject>Urogenital system</subject><issn>0962-1067</issn><issn>1365-2702</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhiMEokvhLyCLCxey-CO2kwtSFUGhKi0HPnqzXHt268Ubp7Yjtj-Hf4rDlj1wAR_skeedZzTzVhUieEnKeb1ZEiZ4TSWmS4pxt8SMELbcPagWh8TDaoE7QWuChTyqnqS0wZgwStnj6ohijktJu6h-niAThhyD92BfoagHG7YugUU5Ou1Lcjvq6IY1SuXygHJA28lnN5ZYj6N3RmcXBuSdDUa7ofwO2q8hOY3cgEYN1unCMiXMDoac0DRYiOswQ6cI-SbOfXS-gQzRpT1ujMGALen0tHq00j7Bs_v3uPry7u3n_n19fnn6oT85rw0ngtUSA-BuZQXHUhhRBm0aZiXXkoIluMWdNA1dgW1W4loaDk0rWGdM2zHacMPYcfVyzy2tbydIWZU9GPBeDxCmpKRomoJm7b-VjBHMG8GL8sVfyk2YYtlPUpQVC3hLRRG1e5GJIaUIKzVGt9XxThGsZrvVRs2uqtlVNdutftutdqX0-T1_ut6CPRT-8bcI3uwFP5yHu_8Gq7PL_mIOC6DeA1zKsDsAdPyuhGSSq28Xp-rs41VPP1316iv7BYZwyzo</recordid><startdate>201003</startdate><enddate>201003</enddate><creator>Boots, Brenda K</creator><creator>Edmundson, Elizabeth E</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201003</creationdate><title>A controlled, randomised trial comparing single to multiple application lidocaine analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing urethral catheterisation procedures</title><author>Boots, Brenda K ; Edmundson, Elizabeth E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5163-70ee09fd65076c6322443d75a72ed108097c42fed4f6b7c5e48639cc893245c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>analgesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Local - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Local - therapeutic use</topic><topic>catheterisation</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>children</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>lidocaine</topic><topic>Lidocaine - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Lidocaine - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Pain management</topic><topic>Pediatric Nursing</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>urethral</topic><topic>Urinary Catheterization - nursing</topic><topic>Urogenital system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boots, Brenda K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edmundson, Elizabeth E</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical nursing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boots, Brenda K</au><au>Edmundson, Elizabeth E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A controlled, randomised trial comparing single to multiple application lidocaine analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing urethral catheterisation procedures</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical nursing</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Nurs</addtitle><date>2010-03</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>5-6</issue><spage>744</spage><epage>748</epage><pages>744-748</pages><issn>0962-1067</issn><eissn>1365-2702</eissn><abstract>Aims and objectives.  The aim of this study was to evaluate if discomfort levels are statistically significant when two different topical and intraurethral precatheterisation analgesia strategies are used. The primary objective of this research project was to examine methods to decrease pain experienced by paediatric cystogram patients. Background.  Paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisations frequently report discomfort. To alleviate catheterisation discomfort in children, some institutions have either used sedation techniques or topical analgesia strategies. Standardisation of topical anaesthetic application prior to paediatric urinary catheterisation has not been demonstrated in the research literature. Design.  A prospective, single‐blind, randomised, controlled trial. Methods.  The trial was performed with infants and children aged two months–eight years. The first group received one application of lidocaine five minutes prior to catheterisation. The control group received two applications, spaced five minutes apart prior to catheterisation. The FLACC pain score, as the primary outcome variable, was assessed at the time of the catheterisation. Secondary outcome variables including pre‐ and postcatheterisation heart rate and parental perception were also measured. Conclusions.  Two hundred children between two months–eight years of age were randomly assigned for study inclusion with 91 patients enrolled into the two application groups and 109 patients into the single application group. No statistically significant differences (p = 0·779) in the mean FLACC pain score at the time of the catheterisation between the intervention (single application) group (mean = 3·30) and the control (two application) group (mean = 3·39), heart rate or parental perceptions were observed. Relevance to clinical practice.  Topical and intraurethral lidocaine analgesia strategies prior to urinary catheterisation provide an important tool in reducing discomfort for paediatric patients undergoing urinary catheterisation procedures. This study confirms that multiple applications of intraurethral lidocaine gel add little additional benefits in reducing discomfort over single intraurethral application techniques.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>20500318</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03113.x</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0962-1067
ispartof Journal of clinical nursing, 2010-03, Vol.19 (5-6), p.744-748
issn 0962-1067
1365-2702
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_764407638
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects analgesia
Anesthesia
Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage
Anesthetics, Local - therapeutic use
catheterisation
Child
Child, Preschool
children
Clinical trials
Female
Humans
Infant
Intubation
lidocaine
Lidocaine - administration & dosage
Lidocaine - therapeutic use
Male
Nursing
Pain management
Pediatric Nursing
Pediatrics
Prospective Studies
urethral
Urinary Catheterization - nursing
Urogenital system
title A controlled, randomised trial comparing single to multiple application lidocaine analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing urethral catheterisation procedures
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T20%3A46%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20controlled,%20randomised%20trial%20comparing%20single%20to%20multiple%20application%20lidocaine%20analgesia%20in%20paediatric%20patients%20undergoing%20urethral%20catheterisation%20procedures&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20nursing&rft.au=Boots,%20Brenda%20K&rft.date=2010-03&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=5-6&rft.spage=744&rft.epage=748&rft.pages=744-748&rft.issn=0962-1067&rft.eissn=1365-2702&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03113.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1966350461%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=235005826&rft_id=info:pmid/20500318&rfr_iscdi=true