Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T13:00:48.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of two different local anaesthetic methods vs no anaesthesia on pain scores for intratympanic injections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2016

N Ata
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gaziantep 25 Aralık State Hospital, Turkey
O Erdur*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Selçuk University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey
M H Görgülü
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Bartın State Hospital, Turkey
E Yilmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr O Erdur, Selcuk University Alaeddin Keykubad Campus, 42075 Konya, Turkey Fax: +90 332 241 60 65 E-mail: dromerdur@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study compared the pain associated with the intratympanic injection combined with various local anaesthetics vs without anaesthesia.

Methods:

The study included 40 patients (aged 18–78 years) who received intratympanic steroid injections for sudden idiopathic hearing loss or tinnitus. Each patient underwent all three injection methods at one-week intervals. Patients received one of two local anaesthetics (lidocaine injection or lidocaine spray) or no anaesthesia before intratympanic injection, and used a visual analogue scale to indicate the pain level after 5 and 45 minutes.

Results:

Five minutes after injection, patients who did not receive anaesthesia and those who received lidocaine spray reported lower pain scores than those who received a lidocaine injection (p < 0.05). There was no difference in pain scores for all three methods at 45 minutes after intratympanic injection.

Conclusion:

Neither of the local anaesthetics was found to be superior to having no anaesthesia.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Introduction

In recent years, steroid application via intratympanic perfusion has become more common as a primary treatment or salvage treatment for sudden idiopathic hearing loss and for treating Ménière's disease and various inner-ear diseases such as tinnitus.Reference Crawley, Close, Canto and Harris 1 , Reference Erdur, Kayhan and Cirik 2 Intratympanic steroid treatment is often well tolerated by patients, does not require hospitalisation, and can be used as a primary, combined, or salvage treatment in the clinic. It is also inexpensive compared with systemic steroid use.Reference Fu, Zhao, Zhang and Chi 3

Animal studies have shown that application through the tympanic membrane generates higher steroid concentrations in the perilymph compared with systemic methods. Intratympanic application also avoids the side effects of systemic steroid treatment such as immunosuppression, osteoporosis and weight gain, as well as endocrine and skin changes.Reference Alles, der Gaag and Stokroos 4 Another significant advantage of intratympanic injection is that it enables treatment to be restricted to the affected ear.Reference Alles, der Gaag and Stokroos 4 However, pain due to injection, hearing loss, tympanic membrane perforation, otitis media and vertigo are clear disadvantages compared with systemic steroid use.Reference Erdur, Kayhan and Cirik 2 , Reference Choi, Lee, Lim, In, Kim and Bae 5 , Reference Barrs 6 Intratympanic steroid application can be via direct injection without anaesthesia or with local anaesthesia such as lidocaine spray, lidocaine injection, topical phenol, pantocaine or Emla cream (lidocaine plus prilocaine).Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 Reference Paksoy, Altin, Eken and Hardal 10 Although a number of reports have described intratympanic injection, there is no consensus on which anaesthesia technique is most comfortable for patients.Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 Further, the least painful method of injection through the tympanic membrane has not been established.

This study aimed to compare patient comfort levels for intratympanic injections without prior anaesthesia with those performed after lidocaine injection or topical lidocaine.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study included 40 patients (17 men and 23 women) aged 18–78 years (mean 49.2 years) who underwent intratympanic injection between June 2013 and December 2014. Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Faculty, Gaziantep University. Written consent was provided by all patients after the benefits and risks of treatment methods had been explained. In all, 24 patients with sudden idiopathic hearing loss underwent intratympanic injection. In those patients, hearing loss was sensorineural and had developed over three days or less. In all, 16 patients with refractory idiopathic tinnitus lasting for at least four weeks and who did not benefit from oral medical treatment also underwent intratympanic steroid injection.

Patients were excluded from the study if they had received painkillers within the last 24 hours, had used oral steroids, had undergone ear surgery, had chronic otitis media, had Eustachian tube dysfunction, had been diagnosed with a retrocochlear pathology, had received combined intratympanic treatment with systemic steroids for sudden idiopathic hearing loss or had received fewer than three intratympanic injections. Patient evaluation included taking a detailed anamnesis (i.e. medical history), autoscopic examination, audiological testing and magnetic resonance imaging to eliminate the possibility of a retrocochlear lesion.

Study design

All 40 patients received intratympanic injections once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Patients were not randomised and each received three different types of premedication: lidocaine injection or lidocaine spray as a local anaesthetic or no anaesthesia. In the first method, subcutaneous injection of local anaesthetic (1 per cent lidocaine and 1:100 000 adrenaline; Jetokain; IE Ulagay, Istanbul, Turkey) was performed using a dental injector into the anterior, posterior and both lateral quadrants of the external auditory canal prior to intratympanic injection. In the second method, a 10 per cent lidocaine spray (Xylocaine; AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK) was applied three times from the external auditory canal onto the tympanic membrane 20 minutes before intratympanic injection. Each application contained 10 mg lidocaine (total 30 mg). Lidocaine spray was aspirated from the tympanic membrane prior to injection. Prior to injections without anaesthesia, patients were not sedated. The pain level associated with each type of premedication was assessed at 5 minutes and 45 minutes after intratympanic injection.

Intratympanic injection

Prior to intratympanic injection of dexamethasone, the vial was warmed to body temperature in the palm of the hand to prevent dizziness due to a cold injection. Afterwards, patients were moved into a supine position with their head turned 45° toward the healthy ear and about 0.5 ml dexamethasone (4 mg/ml) was applied into the posterior–inferior quadrant via a 25-gauge spinal needle under microscopy so as to fill the middle ear. Patients were then asked to remain in this position for 30 minutes to ensure that the maximum amount of medication could be absorbed through the round window. Patients were also asked not to swallow after the injection to prevent leakage of the medication into the Eustachian tube. All patients were injected in the same way to control for other factors that might affect pain assessment.

Pain evaluation

The effects of anaesthesia on pain were assessed by asking patients to score the pain levels at 5 and 45 minutes after intratympanic injection using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain).

Statistical analysis

All 40 patients were treated with all three premedication methods. A power analysis for repeated measures of two repeated measurements found that the lidocaine injection results had a power of 0.892 (effect size = 0.65), the lidocaine spray results had a power of 0.853 (effect size = 0.57) and without anaesthesia results had a power of 0.867 (effect size = 0.60).

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21.0 software (Armonk, New York, USA). The Shapiro-Wilk normality test was used to test for normally distributed data, and the Friedman (K related samples test) and Wilcoxon (two related samples tests) tests were used to test for differences between groups of non-normally distributed data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Seventeen men (42.5 per cent) and 23 women (57.5 per cent) aged 18–78 years (mean age 49.2 ± 17.4 years) were included in the study.

Comparison of premedication methods

Friedman testing of VAS pain scores at 5 minutes after intratympanic injection showed that these were significantly higher for lidocaine injection than for the other two methods (χ2 = 17.956, p < 0.05). The lowest mean pain score at 5 minutes was obtained for the lidocaine spray, but there was no significant difference between scores for the lidocaine spray and for no anaesthesia methods. There was no significant difference in 45 minute scores among all three methods (χ2 = 2.114, p = 0.347). Figure 1 shows patients' VAS scores for all three premedication methods at 5 and 45 minutes.

Fig. 1 Interval plot showing the mean visual analogue scale scores and 95 per cent confidence intervals for all three premedication methods at 5 and 45 minutes after intratympanic steroid injection. Min = minutes

Patient preferences for premedication methods

After undergoing all three premedication methods, patients were asked to indicate their order of preference: lidocaine spray was the first choice of 17 patients (42.5 per cent), no anaesthesia was the first choice of 17 (42.5 per cent) and lidocaine injection was the first choice of 6 (15 per cent). When patients were asked to state their least-preferred method, 31 (77.5 per cent) chose the lidocaine injection, 3 (7.5 per cent) chose the lidocaine spray and 6 (15 per cent) chose no anaesthesia. Table I shows the order of preference for all three premedication methods.

Table I Ranking of premedication methods by patients

Side effects of intratympanic injection

No patient experienced haemorrhage in the external auditory canal due to injection, nor was there any requirement for pain-relief medication for the intratympanic injection. Three patients experienced mild temporary vertigo; none experienced hearing loss, infection or tympanic membrane perforation.

Discussion

Intratympanic injection is a minimally-invasive procedure that is well tolerated by patients without a need for medication; it can be performed in the clinic without major complications.Reference Fu, Zhao, Zhang and Chi 3 Using this technique, steroids can pass through the blood–labyrinth barrier and reach higher concentrations in the perilymph–endolymph compared with systemic administration.Reference Parnes, Sun and Freeman 11 Side effects such as glucose intolerance, drug-induced abnormal liver function, acne, effects on the gastrointestinal system, hypertension, immunosuppression and femoral head avascular necrosis do not occur with intratympanic steroid injection.Reference Choung, Park, Shin and Cho 12 Intratympanic injection is used to treat various inner-ear diseases, including sudden idiopathic hearing loss, tinnitus and Ménière's disease.Reference Dispenza, De Stefano, Costantino, Marchese and Riggio 13 Reference Topak, Sahin-Yilmaz, Ozdoganoglu, Yilmaz, Ozbay and Kulekci 15 Other intratympanic injection indications have been on the rise in recent years. Chung et al. demonstrated that intratympanic steroid injections are effective for treating Bell's palsy.Reference Chung, Park, Lee, Kim, Cho and Kim 16 Yang et al. reported that intratympanic steroid injections were effective for treating adolescent and adult patients with otitis media with effusion.Reference Yang, Zhao, An, Zheng, Yu and Gu 17

Patients may experience earache, caloric vertigo, dizziness, tympanic membrane perforation, hearing loss or infection due to intratympanic injections.Reference Parnes, Sun and Freeman 18 Caloric vertigo and dizziness can be prevented by adjusting the temperature of steroids to body temperature before injection. Permanent tympanic membrane perforation, infection and hearing loss rarely occur. Pain can be minimised by using thin needles.Reference Lavigne, Lavigne and Saliba 19 In the present study, each of the three premedication methods for intratympanic injection was well tolerated by patients: the only side effects were a few cases of mild temporary vertigo.

Various local anaesthetics are used to minimise pain during intratympanic injection. Lidocaine spray (applied directly to the tympanic membrane with a sponge or cotton) is the most common method.Reference Han, Park, Boo, Jo, Park and Lee 20 Reference Gouveris, Selivanova and Mann 22 Lidocaine injection or pantocaine, topical phenol and Emla cream application to the tympanic membrane prior to steroid injection have been used as local anaesthesia.Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 Reference Paksoy, Altin, Eken and Hardal 10 Belhassen and Saliba reported that intratympanic injection without local anaesthesia was as well tolerated by patients as injections performed with Emla cream or a lidocaine injection.Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 In the same study, pain was measured after 5 and 45 minutes using four different pain scales, with no difference identified between the methods. No other studies have compared pain outcomes among different intratympanic injection methods.Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 No study has compared injection without anaesthesia or with lidocaine injection or lidocaine spray, both of which are used more frequently than Emla cream for local anaesthesia.

The present study found no significant difference in mean VAS scores at 5 minutes between patients who received intratympanic steroid injections without anaesthesia and those who received lidocaine spray anaesthesia. Lower scores were found for the lidocaine spray group than the no anaesthesia group, but the difference was not significant. However, the mean 5-minute VAS score was significantly higher in the lidocaine injection group. This was probably because the lidocaine injection needed to provide adequate anaesthesia caused a similar level of pain to that caused by the steroid injection. Administering anaesthetic agents by local injection has been shown to cause pain as well as needle anxiety, which increases the pain sensation.Reference Kaweski 23 Furthermore, haemorrhage, oedema and haematoma are possible side effects of local anaesthesia premedication administered via injection.Reference Martellucci, Pagliuca, de Vincentiis, Greco, Fusconi and De Virgilio 24 , Reference Tremont-Lukats, Challapalli, McNicol, Lau and Carr 25

After applying local anaesthetic sprays and creams, a short delay is necessary before the intratympanic steroid injection. After Emla cream is applied to the external auditory canal, a delay of about 60 minutes is necessary before intratympanic injection, and a delay of 120 minutes is recommended to achieve more effective local anaesthesia.Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 , Reference Bierrina and Arnendt-Nielson 26 Although one study reported a delay of only 2–3 minutes after applying lidocaine spray to the tympanic membrane, a period of 20 minutes is more common.Reference Ferri, Frisina, Fasson, Armato, Spinato and Amadori 21 , Reference Filipo, Covelli, Balsamo and Attanasio 27 , Reference Filipo, Attanasio, Russo, Viccaro, Mancini and Covelli 28 The present study adopted a 20-minute delay after applying the lidocaine spray.

Advantages of intratympanic injection without anaesthesia are the lower cost and lack of a waiting period. The possible side effects and complications of local anaesthetics are also avoided.

In the present study, patients ranked the lidocaine spray premedication and injection without anaesthesia as their first preference and the lidocaine injection as their least-preferred method. The reason for the latter may be that the pain of injection was experienced twice: once during anaesthesia infiltration and again during the intratympanic injection. Belhassen and Saliba reported that injection without anaesthesia was the most preferred method.Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 The reason given by patients for choosing to forego anaesthesia was to avoid the waiting period before intratympanic injection.

The present study and the Belhassen and Saliba study both suggest that using local anaesthesia prior to intratympanic injection (Emla cream, lidocaine spray or lidocaine injection) has no benefit over injection without anaesthesia.Reference Belhassen and Saliba 7 Intratympanic injection without anaesthesia has not been shown to be more painful than the other methods. The present results indicate that intratympanic injection can be performed without anaesthesia, thus protecting patients from the disadvantages of anaesthesia.

  • Intratympanic steroid injections are increasingly used as primary and salvage treatments for otological diseases

  • Intratympanic injection generates higher perilymph drug concentrations compared with the systemic route

  • Intratympanic treatment can avoid systemic side effects

  • Pain is the main limitation of intratympanic drug use, but can be prevented with local anaesthetics

  • Pain levels for intratympanic injection performed without anaesthesia or with the use of lidocaine injection and lidocaine spray as local anaesthetics were compared

  • Pain scores were similar for intratympanic injection with and without local anaesthesia

The small patient cohort was the main limitation of this study. Despite this, the pain score for intratympanic injection without anaesthesia was similar to that obtained with the use of local anaesthesia. However, this finding needs to be verified in a broader range of patients before generalising to the general population.

Conclusion

Different local anaesthetics have been used to control the pain of intratympanic injection. Intratympanic injection was found to be no more painful without local anaesthesia than with local anaesthesia. However, the procedure is cheaper and shorter without anaesthesia, and avoids the side effects of local anaesthetics.

References

1 Crawley, BK, Close, A, Canto, C, Harris, JP. Susac's syndrome: intratympanic therapy for hearing loss and a review of the literature. Laryngoscope 2009;119:141–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Erdur, O, Kayhan, FT, Cirik, AA. Effectiveness of intratympanic dexamethasone for refractory sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:1431–6Google Scholar
3 Fu, Y, Zhao, H, Zhang, T, Chi, F. Intratympanic dexamethasone as initial therapy for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: clinical evaluation and laboratory investigation. Auris Nasus Larynx 2011;38:165–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Alles, MJ, der Gaag, MA, Stokroos, RJ. Intratympanic steroid therapy for inner ear diseases, a review of the literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:791–7Google Scholar
5 Choi, SJ, Lee, JB, Lim, HJ, In, SM, Kim, JY, Bae, KH et al. Intratympanic dexamethasone injection for refractory tinnitus: prospective placebo-controlled study. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2817–22Google Scholar
6 Barrs, DM. Intratympanic injections of dexamethasone for long-term control of vertigo. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1910–14Google Scholar
7 Belhassen, S, Saliba, I. Pain assessment of the intratympanic injections: a prospective comparative study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;269:2467–73Google Scholar
8 Plaza, G, Herraiz, C. Intratympanic steroids for treatment of sudden hearing loss after failure of intravenous therapy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:74–8Google Scholar
9 Tezer, MS, Baran, Y, Erdur, O, Ata, N, Arslanhan, M. Comparison of systemic, intratympanic and combination therapy of the steroids for the treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. J Med Sci 2013;33:353–9Google Scholar
10 Paksoy, M, Altin, G, Eken, M, Hardal, U. Effectiveness of intratympanic dexamethasone in otitis media with effusion resistant to conventional therapy. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;65:461–7Google Scholar
11 Parnes, LS, Sun, AH, Freeman, DJ. Corticosteroid pharmacokinetics in the inner ear fluids: an animal study followed by clinical application. Laryngoscope 1999;109:117 Google Scholar
12 Choung, YH, Park, K, Shin, YR, Cho, MJ. Intratympanic dexamethasone injection for refractory sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2006;116:747–52Google Scholar
13 Dispenza, F, De Stefano, A, Costantino, C, Marchese, D, Riggio, F. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss: results of intratympanic steroids as salvage treatment. Am J Otolaryngol 2013;34:296300 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Garduño-Anaya, MA, Couthino De Toledo, H, Hinojosa-González, R, Pane-Pianese, C, Ríos-Castañeda, LC. Dexamethasone inner ear perfusion by-blind, randomized trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:285–94Google Scholar
15 Topak, M, Sahin-Yilmaz, A, Ozdoganoglu, T, Yilmaz, HB, Ozbay, M, Kulekci, M. Intratympanic methylprednisolone injections for subjective tinnitus. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:1221–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Chung, JH, Park, CW, Lee, SH, Kim, BS, Cho, SH, Kim, HY et al. Intratympanic steroid injection for Bell's palsy: preliminary randomized controlled study. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1673–8Google Scholar
17 Yang, F, Zhao, Y, An, P, Zheng, Y, Yu, R, Gu, D et al. Longitudinal results of intratympanic injection of budesonide for otitis media with effusion in children over 12 years and adults. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:629–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Parnes, LS, Sun, AH, Freeman, DJ. Corticosteroid pharmacokinetics in the inner ear fluids: an animal study followed by clinical application. Laryngoscope 1999;109:117 Google Scholar
19 Lavigne, P, Lavigne, F, Saliba, I. Intratympanic corticosteroids injections: a systematic review of literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;273:2271–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Han, CS, Park, JR, Boo, SH, Jo, JM, Park, KW, Lee, WY et al. Clinical efficacy of initial intratympanic steroid treatment on sudden sensorineural hearing loss with diabetes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141:572–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Ferri, E, Frisina, A, Fasson, AC, Armato, E, Spinato, G, Amadori, M. Intratympanic steroid treatment for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss after failure of intravenous therapy. ISRN Otolaryngol 2012;2012:647271 Google Scholar
22 Gouveris, H, Selivanova, O, Mann, W. Intratympanic dexamethasone with hyaluronic acid in the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss after failure of intravenous steroid and vasoactive therapy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2005;262:131–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Kaweski, S. Topical anesthetic creams. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:2161–5Google Scholar
24 Martellucci, S, Pagliuca, G, de Vincentiis, M, Greco, A, Fusconi, M, De Virgilio, A et al. EMLA(®) cream as local anesthetic for radiofrequency turbinate tissue reduction. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2717–22Google Scholar
25 Tremont-Lukats, IW, Challapalli, V, McNicol, ED, Lau, J, Carr, DB. Systemic administration of local anesthetics to relieve neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2005;101:1738–49Google Scholar
26 Bierrina, P, Arnendt-Nielson, L. Depth and duration of skin analgesia to needle insertion after topical application of EMLA cream. Br J Anaesth 1990;64:173–7Google Scholar
27 Filipo, R, Covelli, E, Balsamo, G, Attanasio, G. Intratympanic prednisolone therapy for sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a new protocol. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:1209–13Google Scholar
28 Filipo, R, Attanasio, G, Russo, FY, Viccaro, M, Mancini, P, Covelli, E. Intratympanic steroid therapy in moderate sudden hearing loss: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Laryngoscope 2013;123:774–8Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Interval plot showing the mean visual analogue scale scores and 95 per cent confidence intervals for all three premedication methods at 5 and 45 minutes after intratympanic steroid injection. Min = minutes

Figure 1

Table I Ranking of premedication methods by patients