Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Olday, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, J. Y. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Olday, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, J. Y. Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 88, No. 4 580-582
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Short Communications

Radial artery cannulation: topical amethocaine gel versus lidocaine infiltration

S. J. Olday*,1, R. Walpole1 and J. Y. Y. Wang1

1Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9YW, UK*Corresponding author: Department of Anaesthesia, Frenchay Hospital, Frenchay Park Road, Bristol BS16 1EE, UK

Background. In a prospective randomized study, we compared topical 4% amethocaine gel (AmetopTM) with 2% lidocaine infiltration for analgesia for radial artery cannulation. A previous study had shown topical analgesia with EMLA cream reduced pain, shortened cannulation time, and improved success rates when compared with lidocaine infiltration.

Methods. One hundred adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were randomized. Cannulation times and success rates were compared between the two groups. The quality of analgesia was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and four-point verbal pain scoring system.

Results. Ninety-nine sets of data were analysed using Mann–Whitney U and chi-squared tests. Mean time to cannulation was 56 s in the amethocaine group (interquartile range (IQR) 41–142) and 59 s in the lidocaine group (IQR 40–105). The median pain score on the VAS was 2 in both groups (IQR 1–3.5 for amethocaine and 0–4 for lidocaine).

Conclusions. There was no significant difference between these two methods of analgesia for any measured variable.

Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 580–2


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




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.