Comparing 2% lidocaine gel (Dispogel and Cathejell) in cystoscopy

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridaydogan, mustafa said/0000-0002-7106-1156
dc.authoridUçar, Muharrem/0000-0002-1232-9829
dc.authoridGeçit, İlhan/0000-0001-7329-6971
dc.authorwosidaydogan, mustafa said/AAA-2828-2021
dc.authorwosidUçar, Muharrem/ABH-7761-2020
dc.authorwosidGeçit, İlhan/ABI-8258-2020
dc.contributor.authorUcar, Muharrem
dc.contributor.authorOguz, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorGecit, Ilhan
dc.contributor.authorAydogan, Mustafa Said
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T20:46:47Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T20:46:47Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective Cystoscopy is a common urologic procedure. Analgesics are often used to reduce any pain associated with this procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy in reducing pain and the cost-effectiveness of two forms of lidocaine gel in patients undergoing cystoscopy. Methods In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 77 male patients who were referred for double J removal, urethral dilatation, or cystoscopy were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups: Dispogel and Cathejell. All patients received 20 mL of intraurethral lidocaine gel 2% and cystoscopy was performed 5 minutes thereafter. The primary outcome was the pain score (visual analogue scale, VAS) during and 5 minutes after cystoscopy. Results There were no statistically significant differences between the VAS scores, blood pressure, and pulse rate in the groups in either observation period. No patient required additional anesthetic agents or sedatives for insufficient pain relief. Conclusion The results of this study show that the analgesic efficacy of Dispogel and Cathejell in the treatment of pain during and after elective cystoscopy was the same, but Dispogel was more cost-effective.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0300060519858509
dc.identifier.endpage4229en_US
dc.identifier.issn0300-0605
dc.identifier.issn1473-2300
dc.identifier.issue9en_US
dc.identifier.pmid31307254en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85072359659en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage4225en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0300060519858509
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/98962
dc.identifier.volume47en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000479533200001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of International Medical Researchen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subject2% lidocaine gelen_US
dc.subjectDispogelen_US
dc.subjectCathejellen_US
dc.subjectcystoscopyen_US
dc.subjectpainen_US
dc.subjectcost-effectivenessen_US
dc.subjectpain scoreen_US
dc.subjectelective surgeryen_US
dc.titleComparing 2% lidocaine gel (Dispogel and Cathejell) in cystoscopyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu