Loading…

Lidocaine spray versus viscous lidocaine solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Objectives There are two major methods for local anesthesia by lidocaine before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: simple spray and viscous solution. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety by meta‐analysis between these two methods. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Registe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Digestive endoscopy 2021-05, Vol.33 (4), p.538-548
Main Authors: Watanabe, Jun, Ikegami, Yusuke, Tsuda, Ayumi, Kakehi, Eiichi, Kanno, Takeshi, Ishikawa, Shizukiyo, Kataoka, Yuki
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-ca4a71e6aac3a1009af1f163c99fcf33df166c405d7af5aa4ca251d25b87c7363
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-ca4a71e6aac3a1009af1f163c99fcf33df166c405d7af5aa4ca251d25b87c7363
container_end_page 548
container_issue 4
container_start_page 538
container_title Digestive endoscopy
container_volume 33
creator Watanabe, Jun
Ikegami, Yusuke
Tsuda, Ayumi
Kakehi, Eiichi
Kanno, Takeshi
Ishikawa, Shizukiyo
Kataoka, Yuki
description Objectives There are two major methods for local anesthesia by lidocaine before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: simple spray and viscous solution. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety by meta‐analysis between these two methods. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through October 2019 to perform meta‐analyses using random‐effects models. The primary outcomes were participants' pain/discomfort, satisfaction, and anaphylactic shock. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020155611). Results We included seven randomized controlled trials (2667 participants). The participants' pain/discomfort may be similar between the lidocaine spray and viscous solution [standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) −0.37 to 0.42; I2 = 93%; low certainty of evidence]. The lidocaine spray probably increased participants' satisfaction compared with the viscous solution (relative risk 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.47; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty of evidence). No anaphylactic shock occurred in four studies (low certainty of evidence). Four studies had high risks of selection bias. Conclusion The use of lidocaine spray for local anesthesia provided better satisfaction scores than the viscous solution, and both methods have the same effect with regards to the control of discomfort and pain. Further studies in large multicenter randomized controlled trials with a pre‐registration protocol are needed. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=155611
doi_str_mv 10.1111/den.13775
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2416260256</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2416260256</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-ca4a71e6aac3a1009af1f163c99fcf33df166c405d7af5aa4ca251d25b87c7363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhS0EopfCghdAXsIirR3_hLBDpfxIV7AA1tHUmbRGjh3s5FbZ8Qh9AJ6uT8KU28Kq3oys8-lo5hzGnktxJOkd9xiPpGoa84BtpNaqktbKh2wjWmkqY5U5YE9K-SGErFutH7MDVZtGCWk37PfW98mBj8jLlGHlO8xlKXzni0s0w385hWX2KfIhZT5dQF7jOULggfTAIWKZL7B44D7yZZow83Moc04-ziT5SBDGPpHttL7hX9cy4wizdzzjzuMlOfR8xBmuf10BwWvx5Sl7NEAo-Ox2HrLv70-_nXystl8-fDp5u62cNtpUDjQ0Ei2AUyCFaGGQg7TKte3gBqV6-linhekbGAyAdlAb2dfm7HXjGmXVIXu5951y-rnQtt1I52MIdBWF0NVa2tqK2tygr_aoy6mUjEM3ZT9SGJ0U3U0ZHZXR_S2D2Be3tsvZiP0_8i59Ao73wKUPuN7v1L07_by3_AMTv5nH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2416260256</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lidocaine spray versus viscous lidocaine solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Watanabe, Jun ; Ikegami, Yusuke ; Tsuda, Ayumi ; Kakehi, Eiichi ; Kanno, Takeshi ; Ishikawa, Shizukiyo ; Kataoka, Yuki</creator><creatorcontrib>Watanabe, Jun ; Ikegami, Yusuke ; Tsuda, Ayumi ; Kakehi, Eiichi ; Kanno, Takeshi ; Ishikawa, Shizukiyo ; Kataoka, Yuki</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives There are two major methods for local anesthesia by lidocaine before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: simple spray and viscous solution. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety by meta‐analysis between these two methods. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through October 2019 to perform meta‐analyses using random‐effects models. The primary outcomes were participants' pain/discomfort, satisfaction, and anaphylactic shock. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020155611). Results We included seven randomized controlled trials (2667 participants). The participants' pain/discomfort may be similar between the lidocaine spray and viscous solution [standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) −0.37 to 0.42; I2 = 93%; low certainty of evidence]. The lidocaine spray probably increased participants' satisfaction compared with the viscous solution (relative risk 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.47; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty of evidence). No anaphylactic shock occurred in four studies (low certainty of evidence). Four studies had high risks of selection bias. Conclusion The use of lidocaine spray for local anesthesia provided better satisfaction scores than the viscous solution, and both methods have the same effect with regards to the control of discomfort and pain. Further studies in large multicenter randomized controlled trials with a pre‐registration protocol are needed. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=155611</description><identifier>ISSN: 0915-5635</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1443-1661</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/den.13775</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32573016</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia</publisher><subject>endoscopy ; lidocaine ; oral sprays ; systematic review ; viscosity</subject><ispartof>Digestive endoscopy, 2021-05, Vol.33 (4), p.538-548</ispartof><rights>2020 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society</rights><rights>2020 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-ca4a71e6aac3a1009af1f163c99fcf33df166c405d7af5aa4ca251d25b87c7363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-ca4a71e6aac3a1009af1f163c99fcf33df166c405d7af5aa4ca251d25b87c7363</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4477-4238 ; 0000-0001-7305-5924</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32573016$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Watanabe, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ikegami, Yusuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuda, Ayumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kakehi, Eiichi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanno, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishikawa, Shizukiyo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kataoka, Yuki</creatorcontrib><title>Lidocaine spray versus viscous lidocaine solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis</title><title>Digestive endoscopy</title><addtitle>Dig Endosc</addtitle><description>Objectives There are two major methods for local anesthesia by lidocaine before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: simple spray and viscous solution. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety by meta‐analysis between these two methods. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through October 2019 to perform meta‐analyses using random‐effects models. The primary outcomes were participants' pain/discomfort, satisfaction, and anaphylactic shock. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020155611). Results We included seven randomized controlled trials (2667 participants). The participants' pain/discomfort may be similar between the lidocaine spray and viscous solution [standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) −0.37 to 0.42; I2 = 93%; low certainty of evidence]. The lidocaine spray probably increased participants' satisfaction compared with the viscous solution (relative risk 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.47; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty of evidence). No anaphylactic shock occurred in four studies (low certainty of evidence). Four studies had high risks of selection bias. Conclusion The use of lidocaine spray for local anesthesia provided better satisfaction scores than the viscous solution, and both methods have the same effect with regards to the control of discomfort and pain. Further studies in large multicenter randomized controlled trials with a pre‐registration protocol are needed. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=155611</description><subject>endoscopy</subject><subject>lidocaine</subject><subject>oral sprays</subject><subject>systematic review</subject><subject>viscosity</subject><issn>0915-5635</issn><issn>1443-1661</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhS0EopfCghdAXsIirR3_hLBDpfxIV7AA1tHUmbRGjh3s5FbZ8Qh9AJ6uT8KU28Kq3oys8-lo5hzGnktxJOkd9xiPpGoa84BtpNaqktbKh2wjWmkqY5U5YE9K-SGErFutH7MDVZtGCWk37PfW98mBj8jLlGHlO8xlKXzni0s0w385hWX2KfIhZT5dQF7jOULggfTAIWKZL7B44D7yZZow83Moc04-ziT5SBDGPpHttL7hX9cy4wizdzzjzuMlOfR8xBmuf10BwWvx5Sl7NEAo-Ox2HrLv70-_nXystl8-fDp5u62cNtpUDjQ0Ei2AUyCFaGGQg7TKte3gBqV6-linhekbGAyAdlAb2dfm7HXjGmXVIXu5951y-rnQtt1I52MIdBWF0NVa2tqK2tygr_aoy6mUjEM3ZT9SGJ0U3U0ZHZXR_S2D2Be3tsvZiP0_8i59Ao73wKUPuN7v1L07_by3_AMTv5nH</recordid><startdate>202105</startdate><enddate>202105</enddate><creator>Watanabe, Jun</creator><creator>Ikegami, Yusuke</creator><creator>Tsuda, Ayumi</creator><creator>Kakehi, Eiichi</creator><creator>Kanno, Takeshi</creator><creator>Ishikawa, Shizukiyo</creator><creator>Kataoka, Yuki</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-4238</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7305-5924</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202105</creationdate><title>Lidocaine spray versus viscous lidocaine solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis</title><author>Watanabe, Jun ; Ikegami, Yusuke ; Tsuda, Ayumi ; Kakehi, Eiichi ; Kanno, Takeshi ; Ishikawa, Shizukiyo ; Kataoka, Yuki</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-ca4a71e6aac3a1009af1f163c99fcf33df166c405d7af5aa4ca251d25b87c7363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>endoscopy</topic><topic>lidocaine</topic><topic>oral sprays</topic><topic>systematic review</topic><topic>viscosity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Watanabe, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ikegami, Yusuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuda, Ayumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kakehi, Eiichi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanno, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishikawa, Shizukiyo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kataoka, Yuki</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Digestive endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Watanabe, Jun</au><au>Ikegami, Yusuke</au><au>Tsuda, Ayumi</au><au>Kakehi, Eiichi</au><au>Kanno, Takeshi</au><au>Ishikawa, Shizukiyo</au><au>Kataoka, Yuki</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lidocaine spray versus viscous lidocaine solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis</atitle><jtitle>Digestive endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Dig Endosc</addtitle><date>2021-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>538</spage><epage>548</epage><pages>538-548</pages><issn>0915-5635</issn><eissn>1443-1661</eissn><abstract>Objectives There are two major methods for local anesthesia by lidocaine before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: simple spray and viscous solution. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety by meta‐analysis between these two methods. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through October 2019 to perform meta‐analyses using random‐effects models. The primary outcomes were participants' pain/discomfort, satisfaction, and anaphylactic shock. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020155611). Results We included seven randomized controlled trials (2667 participants). The participants' pain/discomfort may be similar between the lidocaine spray and viscous solution [standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) −0.37 to 0.42; I2 = 93%; low certainty of evidence]. The lidocaine spray probably increased participants' satisfaction compared with the viscous solution (relative risk 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.47; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty of evidence). No anaphylactic shock occurred in four studies (low certainty of evidence). Four studies had high risks of selection bias. Conclusion The use of lidocaine spray for local anesthesia provided better satisfaction scores than the viscous solution, and both methods have the same effect with regards to the control of discomfort and pain. Further studies in large multicenter randomized controlled trials with a pre‐registration protocol are needed. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=155611</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pmid>32573016</pmid><doi>10.1111/den.13775</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-4238</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7305-5924</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0915-5635
ispartof Digestive endoscopy, 2021-05, Vol.33 (4), p.538-548
issn 0915-5635
1443-1661
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2416260256
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects endoscopy
lidocaine
oral sprays
systematic review
viscosity
title Lidocaine spray versus viscous lidocaine solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T04%3A33%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lidocaine%20spray%20versus%20viscous%20lidocaine%20solution%20for%20pharyngeal%20local%20anesthesia%20in%20upper%20gastrointestinal%20endoscopy:%20Systematic%20review%20and%20meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=Digestive%20endoscopy&rft.au=Watanabe,%20Jun&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=538&rft.epage=548&rft.pages=538-548&rft.issn=0915-5635&rft.eissn=1443-1661&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/den.13775&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2416260256%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-ca4a71e6aac3a1009af1f163c99fcf33df166c405d7af5aa4ca251d25b87c7363%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2416260256&rft_id=info:pmid/32573016&rfr_iscdi=true