Annals of emergency medicine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
1% lidocaine versus 0.5% diphenhydramine for local anesthesia in minor laceration repair.
Our previous study demonstrated that 1% diphenhydramine is as effective as 1% lidocaine for anesthesia in minor laceration repair, but that it also is more painful to inject. The purpose of this study was to compare 0.5% diphenhydramine to 1% lidocaine for pain of injection and adequacy of local anesthesia. ⋯ Although not a replacement for lidocaine, diphenhydramine is a viable alternative for anesthesia in the repair of minor lacerations.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Validation of diphenhydramine as a dermal local anesthetic.
Although diphenhydramine has been recommended as an alternate local anesthetic for patients claiming allergy to lidocaine, no prior placebo-controlled evaluations of diphenhydramine for dermal anesthesia have been performed. We sought to determine the relative efficacy of diphenhydramine compared to saline placebo and lidocaine. ⋯ In this study of 24 adult volunteers, diphenhydramine 1% was as effective as lidocaine 1% for achieving dermal local anesthesia, although injection was more painful. Although no clinically important complications were noted in our study, the safety of diphenhydramine remains to be established, especially in areas with poor collateral perfusion (eg, digits, pinna, and nose).
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Comparison of digital versus metacarpal blocks for repair of finger injuries.
This study compared efficacy, degree of discomfort, and time to anesthesia of digital blocks and metacarpal blocks for digital anesthesia. ⋯ Digital block and metacarpal block, as described in this study, are equally painful procedures. Digital block, however, is more efficacious and requires significantly less time to anesthesia for the injured finger.
-
To describe the syndrome of exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis and to investigate the relation between exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis and the development of acute renal failure. ⋯ Previous literature has described a 17% to 40% incidence of acute renal failure in rhabdomyolysis. None of our patients developed acute renal failure, signifying a much lower incidence of acute renal failure in exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis without nephrotoxic cofactors than in other forms of rhabdomyolysis.