A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Randomized clinical trial of two anesthetic techniques for intravitreal injections: 4% liquid lidocaine on cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel. | LitMetric

Objective: To compare same-day and next-day pain control and safety of two anesthetic techniques utilizing 4% liquid lidocaine applied with sterile cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel for intravitreal injections. Main outcome measures were: discomfort during anesthetic preparation and needle penetration, 1 and 24 h after injection.

Methods: Patients were randomized to alternate anesthetic method at two consecutive injections in one eye or in different eyes on the same day if requiring bilateral injections. Overall satisfaction, corneal staining, and subconjunctival hemorrhage (SCH) were compared.

Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Both methods resulted in similar mild discomfort during anesthetic preparation, 1 and 24 h later. The gel resulted in slightly higher discomfort during needle penetration (p = 0.026). Patients were satisfied with both techniques (p = 0.91), however, 52% patients preferred gel, 33% were indifferent, and 15% preferred cotton swabs (p = 0.002). There were significantly less corneal staining (p = 0.001) and SCH (p = 0.004) after the gel.

Conclusion: Both techniques are equally effective and yield mild discomfort scores during the procedure and the next day. The gel method results in significantly less ocular surface irritation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2012.685155DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cotton swabs
12
anesthetic techniques
8
intravitreal injections
8
liquid lidocaine
8
swabs versus
8
versus 35%
8
35% lidocaine
8
lidocaine gel
8
discomfort anesthetic
8
anesthetic preparation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!