Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jones JS, Plzak C, Wynn BN, Martin S. 1998 USA | 40 adult healthy volunteers (18 years and older) – intradermal injections of bupivucaine. | Double-blinded, randomised study | 100mm visual analogue score (subjects were instructed to consider pain from needle-stick as the mid-point of the VAS) | Pain from warmed buffered bupivucaine was significantly lower than room temp buffered (p=0.003; 12.1mm difference, 95% CI 6.9-16.4). | Small sample (40) No comment on gender. All adults (no children). Only 0.5mL injected. Atraumatic (no wound). Unclear randomisation method. No control on infiltration rate, and on time-interval between needle-stick and infiltration. |
Colaric KB; Overton DT; Moore K. 1998 USA | 20 adult healthy volunteers – intradermal injections of lignocaine. Also looked at effect of buffering pH as well as temp. Four solutions were studied: 1. room temp unbuffered 1%lignocaine 2. warmed 37°C unbuffered 3. room temp buffered 4. warmed 37°C buffered | Double-blinded, randomised, prospective trial | 200mm visual analogue score (subjects were instructed to consider pain from needle-stick as the mid-point of the VAS) | Mean pain score for warmed and buffered lignocaine was significantly lower than all the other solutions (p<0.0005 for solutions 1 and 2, and p<0.005 for solution 3). | Small sample (20 patients receiving 4 injections in each of 4 different occasions). No comment on age/gender. Only 1mL injected. Atraumatic (no wound). |
Fialkov JA, McDougall EP. 1996 Canada | 26 adults (16 women, 10 men): 6 patients with two skin lesions for excision, and 20 healthy volunteers (injected into both forearms). Subcutaneous injections of equal volumes (ranging from 3-6mLs at a rate of 0.05mL/sec) of 1% Lignocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. | Double-blinded randomised trial. | Verbal scoring (0 to 10) to avoid the variable of using the dominant arm immediately after the injection. | The mean difference in pain score between the room temperature and warmed solutions was +1.5 (p<0.0001). | Small sample (26). All adults (no children). Atraumatic (no wound). Variable volumes of solutions injected (3-6mLs); although volumes were equal in each subject. No control on time-interval between needle-stick and infiltration. |
Martin S, Jones JS, Wynn BN. 1996 USA | 40 adult healthy volunteers (18 years and older) – subcutaneous injections of lignoacaine. | Double-blinded, randomised study | 100mm visual analogue scale + subject's assessment: which is more painful (subjects were instructed to consider pain from needle-stick as the mid-point of the VAS) | 20 subjects (50%) reported that 20°C buffered lignocaine was more painful and 17 (42.5%) reported that the 37°C solution was more painful (p=0.74). | Small sample (40) No comment on gender. All adults (no children). Only 1mL injected. Atraumatic (no wound). No control on time-interval between needle-stick and infiltration. |
Waldbillig DK, Quinn JV, Stiell IG, Wells GA. 1995 Canada | 20 adult healthy volunteers (1st year medical students, 10 males and 10 females, ranging from 21 to 32 years) – digital nerve block of middle finger with lignocaine. | Double-blind, randomised, controlled, crossover trial. | 100mm visual analogue scale. | 13 felt less pain with warmed, 6 felt less pain with room temp, and 1 perceived no difference. | Small sample (20 x 2) All adults (no children). Atraumatic (no wound). |
Bartfield JM, Crisafulli KM, Raccio-Robak N, Salluzzo RF. 1995 USA | Part I: 10 healthy adults received intradermal injections of warmed plain and room-temperature buffered 1% lignocaine. Part II: 24 healthy volunteers received intradermal injections of warmed buffered and room-temperature buffered 1% lignocaine. | Two-part randomised, double-blinded clnical trial. | 100mm visual analogue scale. | Part I: Pain scores were significantly higher for warmed as compared to room-temperature buffered lignocaine (28 ±22mm, p<0.01). | Small sample (10 and 24). All adults (no children). No comment on gender. Only 0.5mL injected. Atraumatic (no wound). No comparison between room-temperature plain and warmed plain lignocaine. No control on time-interval between needle-stick and infiltration. |
Brogan GX Jr, Giarrusso E, Hollander JE, Cassara G, Maranga MC, Thode HC. 1995 USA | 45 patients older than 13 years old (mean 30 +/- 10), 80% men similar wounds in length, depth, and location. Also looked at effect of buffering pH as well as temp. Each wound had two margins/sides. Each margin was injected with a different solution of lignoacine and patients were divided into five groups according to solutions injected and order of injection. | Single-blinded, randomised prospective study. | Visual analogue scale. | Both warmed and buffered lignocaine had significantly less pain on infiltration. Mean pain scores: | Single-blinded. Small sample (45) Mostly men. All adults (no children). Amount of injection not determined (?variable). Injection performed by two different investigators who were not blinded. No mentioning of site, size, or depth of wound (despite mentioning that these were similar in all subjects). |
Mader TJ, Playe SJ, Garb JL. 1994 USA | 32 adult healthy volunteers (age 21 to 45 years) – subcutaneous injections of lignocaine. Each volunteer had 4 injections with plain, warm, buffered, and warm-buffered. | Double-Blinded, randomised, controlled study. | 15cm visual analogue scale. | The mean pain score for warm-buffered lignocaine was significantly lower than plain (p=0.0001), warm (p=0.0005) and buffered (p=0.0028) solutions; suggesting a synergistic effect of warming and buffering. | Small sample (32) All adults (no children). No comment on gender. No clear randomisation of order of injections. Only 0.5mL injected. Atraumatic (no wound). No control on time-interval between needle-stick and infiltration. |
Davidson JA, Boom SJ. 1992 UK | 40 medical and paramedical staff (healthy volunteers) – subcutaneous injections of lignocaine. | Double-blinded, randomised, crossover study. | 100mm visual analogue scale + subject's assessment: which is more painful. Subjects were instructed to exclude pain from needle. | 25 (89%, 95% CI 72-98) thought that lignocaine at 20°C was more painful. | Small sample (40) Age 26 to 59 (no children) + mostly men (33 out of 40). Only 1mL injected. Atraumatic (no wound). Unclear randomisation method. |
Bainbridge LC. 1991 UK | 40 adult patients attending for local anaesthetic procedures on the cheeks and chin (4mls of 1% lignocaine with 1:200,000 adrenaline was used) – subcutaneous injections. | Single-blinded, randomised, controlled study. | 15cm visual analogue scale (subjects were instructed to consider pain from needle-stick as the mid-point of the VAS). | Patients perceived significantly less pain (p<0.005) when injected with local anaesthetic at body temperature. | Single-blinded. Small sample (45 injections). No comment on age/gender. Atraumatic (no wound, used for excision of facial lesion). Paired comparison is not possible because patients received only one of the solutions. |
Ram D, Hermida LB, Peretz B. 2002 Israel | 44 children (age 7.9 ± 2.2 years), 21 girls and 23 boys; were given 1.8mLs of 2% Lignocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine at a rate of 1mL per minute; on two separate ocasions. The injections were for dental procedures (palatal or mandibular blocks). Topical anaethetic gel (5% Lignocaine) was applied to the site of injection one minute prior to injection. | Single-blinded randomised trial. | Objective using the modified Behavior Pain Scale - BPS (Taddio et al), Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale - FPS, and 100mm visual analogue scale - VAS. | No statistically significant difference between warmed and room-temperature solutions was found using any of the measurment tools. | Small sample (44). Single-blinded. The use of topical local anaesthetic may obscure any potential difference (especially that VAS scores were 0 in 29 instances). Atraumatic dental procedure. |