Lidocaine solution vs. lidocaine gel instillation for pain management during intravesical botulinum injections
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9011Keywords:
Botulinum toxine, lidocaine gel, office cystoscopy, analgesia, pain controlAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Most Canadian urologists use lidocaine solution prior to botulinium toxin (BoNT) administration; however, this requires additional time. Our aim was to compare pain scores in patients undergoing office-based BoNT using lidocaine instillation and lidocaine gel vs. lidocaine gel alone.
METHODS: All patients undergoing office-based intradetrusor BoNT between March 1 and September 1, 2022, were included. Group 1 received intravesical lidocaine solution (20 ml 2% lidocaine solution + 30 ml 0.9% normal saline) instillation for 30 minutes and lidocaine gel. Group 2 received lidocaine gel only. The Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNRS) was used to measure pain. Patient demographics were compared with t-test for continuous and Chi-squared for categorical variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare pain scores.
RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were included (mean age 61 years, 74.7% female, 58.2% with overactive bladder, and 30.4% receiving first treatment). Group 1 had 39 patients and group 2 had 40. There was no significant difference in pain scores between groups: group 1 median VNRS 3.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5) vs. group 2 median VNRS 4.0 (IQR 2.0) (p=0.11). No significant differences in pain scores were noted between groups based on sex, indication for treatment, or number of previous BoNT treatments (p>0.05). Post-procedural complications were low. Treatment failure did not occur.
CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine gel alone may be an acceptable analgesic alternative while improving availability and efficiency of treatment delivery. Our findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.
