BY DOUG BRUNK
FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LASER MEDICINE AND SURGERY
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]
PHOENIX — Patients reported less or a comparable amount of pain during needling roller treatment for upper lip rhytids when lidocaine was delivered with a jet-phoresis system, compared with an application of EMLA 5% cream, results from a small study of 20 patients showed.
During a poster session that occurred at the meeting, researchers presented results from a study designed to compare ad-ministration of lidocaine with the jet-phoresis system with the topical cream for pain control in patients who were scheduled for needling roller procedures for upper lip rhytids.
For the study, Dr. Michael Gold, a dermatologist who practices in Nashville, Tenn., and Dr. Ram Burvin, a plastic surgeon who practices in Tel-Aviv, had patients serve as their own controls.
The mean age of the patients was 56 years, and all were female. The researchers treated half (left or right) of each patient’s upper lip with EMLA 5% cream for 45 minutes and the contralateral portion of the lip with lidocaine 3% jet phoresis for 5 minutes.
They used a visual analog scale to measure pain elicited by application of a needling roller across the patient’s upper lip.
Each patient again served as her own control 12-16 weeks later when the treatments (lidocaine 3% with jet phoresis vs. EMLA 5%) were repeated on the opposite lip sides for the same du-rations, so that in all, there were 40 full-lip applications of the two treatments.
Lidocaine 3% with jet phoresis and EMLA 5% were comparable in 19 applications. The jet phoresis system was better in 14 applications; EMLA 5% was better in 7 applications.
Different readings for the left and right sides were registered in some of the patients.
Of the total 40 treatments, pain control with lidocaine 3% with jet phoresis and EMLA 5% was comparable in 19 applications. Pain control was better with the lidocaine 3% with jet phoresis in 14 of the applications; it was better with EMLA 5% in 7 applications.
The delivery device, the jetPeel 3, uses pressurized gas at supersonic velocities to deliver saline or other liquid nutrients through special handpieces into the superficial layers of the skin.
The device was cleared by the Food and Drug Ad-ministration in 2006 for delivery of saline into the skin.
Disclosures: The researchers received honoraria from TavTech Ltd., maker of the jet-phoresis system, to conduct the study.