CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lamarche, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lamarche, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, R.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 39, 805-808, Copyright © 1992 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society


ARTICLES

EMLA partially relieves the pain of EMG needling

Y Lamarche, M Lebel and R Martin
Department of Anaesthesia, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the topical analgesic cream EMLA in alleviating the pains caused by needling in electromyography (EMG). During the course of regular neurophysiology clinics, 34 Caucasian patients of both sexes, aged 21 to 69 yr (mean 38.5 +/- 11.4 SD), scheduled for electromyography, were studied. The EMLA was spread thickly on two EMG sites on each arm: E site, on the lateral dorsal aspect of the forearm and A site, on the thenar eminence. Randomization was pre-established. Whenever EMLA was applied blindly on one of the sites of the arm, the placebo was applied on the homologous site of the other arm. After at least 45 min of application (range 45-145 min, mean = 72.3 +/- 22.2), the needle was inserted into the skin and into the muscle. Then the electromyographist asked the patient to score his degree of pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS 1-10 cm) for each level of insertion. The results showed that on the skin of E site, the pain was less after EMLA than placebo (VAS = 0.75 +/- 1.36 vs 3.10 +/- 1.75, P = 0.0001). The untreated E site (placebo) was less sensitive than the untreated A site (VAS = 3.10 +/- 1.75 vs 6.09 +/- 1.96, P = 0.0001). Muscle insertion on E site was less painful on the EMLA sites than placebo (VAS = 2.83 +/- 2.45 vs 5.73 +/- 2.30, P = 0.0001). The VAS scores for skin and muscle insertion on A site were identical whether EMLA or placebo had been applied.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.