• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies

April 1, 2013

  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Citation: Manica D, Schweiger C, Cauduro Maróstica PJ, Kuhl G, Antonacci Carvalho PR. Association between length of intubation and subglottic stenosis in children. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:1049-1054.

You Might Also Like

  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
Explore This Issue
April 2013

—Reviewed by Amy Eckner

Little Difference Between Tetracaine and Lidocaine for Nasal Endoscopy

Is there a difference in comfort levels and other negative side effects between use of atomized 2 percent tetracaine and 4 percent lidocaine for nasal endoscopy patients?

Background: Nasal endoscopy is generally performed in an outpatient setting, with patients given a topical anesthetic for improved comfort. However, there is no consensus on the most effective topical anesthetic for patient comfort. This study examined atomized 2 percent tetracaine and 4 percent lidocaine. According to the study authors, to date there have been no prospective, randomized trials that specifically evaluate patient discomfort, comparing tetracaine and lidocaine, during nasal endoscopy.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Setting: Department of Otolaryngology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C.

Synopsis: Ninety-nine study participants enrolled between July 2011 and May 2012 were randomized to receive either tetracaine or lidocaine. Both physicians and patients were blinded to the anesthetic administered. Patients received two atomized sprays of oxymetazoline and then three sprays of the topical anesthetic; before proceeding, the investigator waited three minutes. The senior author performed all endoscopies for consistency. The mean age of participants was 58.0±16.2 years. Patients were then asked to complete a nine-question survey evaluating comfort level and adverse symptoms using a 10-point analog scale. Participants older than age 58.01±16.20 were more likely to have less overall pain and discomfort and to experience an unpleasant taste. Patients older than age 59.96±16.76 were less likely to suffer from globus sensation and dysphagia in the tetracaine group. The highest score was for unpleasant taste in both anesthetics. The authors found no significant differences between the lidocaine and tetracaine groups. No gender differences were found. Limitations of the study included inherent subjectivity, possible differences in discomfort if a longer waiting time was used, the lack of a placebo arm and a question of whether having a physician with less experience performing the endoscopies would change the results.

Bottom line: There were similar effects using 2 percent tetracaine and 4 percent lidocaine on patients undergoing transnasal fiberoptic endoscopy, although tetracaine may be a better choice for older patients.

Citation: Gaviola GC, Chen V, Chia SH. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing the efficacy of topical anesthetics in nasal endoscopy. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:852-858.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Single Page

Filed Under: Articles, Clinical, Departments, Literature Reviews, Online Exclusives Tagged With: myringoplasty, nasal endoscopy, polysomnography, subglottic stenosis, thyroid cancerIssue: April 2013

You Might Also Like:

  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

More and more medical trainees are taking dedicated, prolonged gap years. Did you?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • Office Laryngoscopy Is Not Aerosol Generating When Evaluated by Optical Particle Sizer
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Top 10 LARY and LIO Articles of 2024
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?
    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment
    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck
    • Short-Term Efficacy of Biologics in Recalcitrant AFRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    • The Devaluation of Otolaryngology: An Evaluation of CMS’s Involvement in Physician Reimbursement
    • Embolized Middle Meningeal Artery as a Surgical Landmark in Infratemporal Fossa
    • Lord of the (Magnetic) Rings: Rigid Bronchoscopy for Aspirated Magnetic Foreign Bodies in Tertiary Bronchi
    • What Otolaryngologists Can Learn from Athletes

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939