Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Romsing, J.
Right arrow Articles by Kjeldsen, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Romsing, J.
Right arrow Articles by Kjeldsen, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 82, Issue 4 637-638, Copyright © 1999 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Tetracaine gel vs EMLA cream for percutaneous anaesthesia in children

J. Romsing, S. W. Henneberg, S. Walther-Larsen and C. Kjeldsen
Department of Pharmaceutics, The Royal Danish School of Pharmacy, 2 Universitetsparken, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Anaesthesiology, The University Hospital of Copenhagen, 9 Blegdamsvej, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

We have evaluated the anaesthetic effect of tetracaine gel 1 g, applied for 45 min, compared with EMLA cream 2 g, applied for 60 min, in a randomized, double-blind study in 60 children aged 3-15 yr. Venous cannulation was performed 15 min after removal of the EMLA cream (n = 20) and tetracaine gel (n = 20). Cannulation was performed up to 215 min after removal of the tetracaine gel in another 20 patients. Significantly lower pain scores were recorded by the children treated with tetracaine gel compared with EMLA cream (P < 0.02). Forty to 45% of children in the tetracaine groups reported no pain compared with only 10% in the EMLA group. Only minor adverse effects were observed. We conclude that tetracaine gel provided effective, rapid, long-lasting and safe local anaesthesia, and was significantly better than EMLA cream in reducing pain during venous cannulation in children using the recommended application periods for both formulations.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
W. T. Zempsky
Pharmacologic Approaches for Reducing Venous Access Pain in Children
Pediatrics, November 1, 2008; 122(Supplement_3): S140 - S153.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
J. Pershad, S. C. Steinberg, and T. M. Waters
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Anesthetic Agents During Peripheral Intravenous Cannulation in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, October 1, 2008; 162(10): 952 - 961.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
G. Arendts, M. Stevens, and M. Fry
Topical anaesthesia and intravenous cannulation success in paediatric patients: a randomized double-blind trial
Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2008; 100(4): 521 - 524.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
L. O'Brien, A. Taddio, M. Ipp, M. Goldbach, and G. Koren
Topical 4% Amethocaine Gel Reduces the Pain of Subcutaneous Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination
Pediatrics, December 1, 2004; 114(6): e720 - e724.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
A R Wolf, P A Stoddart, P J Murphy, and M Sasada
Rapid skin anaesthesia using high velocity lignocaine particles: a prospective placebo controlled trial
Arch. Dis. Child., April 1, 2002; 86(4): 309 - 312.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Emerg. Med. J.Home page
R. Boyd and M. Jacobs
EMLA or amethocaine (tetracaine) for topical analgesia in children
Emerg. Med. J., May 1, 2001; 18(3): 209 - 210.
[Full Text]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.