Published online September 30, 2005
PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 4 October 2005, pp. 917-920 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0103)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail 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 File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vaughan, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pershad, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vaughan, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pershad, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Allergy & Dermatology

Does Lidocaine Gel Alleviate the Pain of Bladder Catheterization in Young Children? A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Maureen Vaughan, MD*, Elizabeth A. Paton, RN, MSN, CS, NP-C*, Andrew Bush, PhD{ddagger} and Jay Pershad, MD*

* Department of Pediatrics, Division of Emergency Medicine
{ddagger} Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee

Objective. Bladder catheterization (BC) is a commonly performed, painful procedure in the pediatric emergency department (ED). A survey demonstrated that analgesia is infrequently used for several brief painful procedures, including BC, in pediatric patients. In this study, we evaluated the use of 2% lidocaine gel to alleviate the pain associated with BC in young children (<2 years) in the ED.

Methods. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing pain scores during bladder catheterization with 2% lidocaine gel versus nonanesthetic lubricant. We used a previously validated scale for measuring brief procedure-related pain in preverbal children (Face Legs Arms Cry Consolability Pain Scale [FLACC]). A total of 115 patients were recruited; 56 patients were randomized to the control group, and 59 were randomized to the lidocaine group. Lubricant was applied to both the genital mucosa and the catheter. Pain measurements were recorded at 3 time intervals: before insertion of the catheter, during catheterization, and after catheterization. Interobserver reliability had been previously established in an observational pilot study.

Results. The difference in mean FLACC scores between the control (7.55 ± 2.56) and study groups (7.37 ± 2.87) during catheterization was not statistically significant. The change in FLACC from time 1 (preprocedure) to time 2 (during procedure) was statistically significant in both groups, suggesting that bladder catheterization is a painful procedure.

Conclusions. Altering the standard practice of use of nonanesthetic lubricant with 2% lidocaine gel as lubricant during bladder catheterization in young children may not be helpful in alleviating the pain associated with the procedure.

Key Words: pain management • Lidocaine gel • bladder catheterization • FLACC

Abbreviations: ED, emergency department • BC, bladder catheterization • FLACC, Face, Legs, Arms, Cry, Consolability Pain Scale

Accepted Jan 18, 2005.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Evid. Based Nurs.Home page
B. Stevens
Use of 2% lidocaine gel during bladder catheterisation did not reduce procedure related pain in young children
Evid. Based Nurs., April 1, 2006; 9(2): 41 - 41.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AAP Grand RoundsHome page
R. I. Paul and B. M. Pate
Bag versus Catheter Urine Specimens in the Diagnosis of UTI in Young Children
AAP Grand Rounds, April 1, 2006; 15(4): 40 - 41.
[Full Text] [PDF]