Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2009
An assessment of the clinical utility of transperineal urethrosphincteric block (TUSB) in outpatient rigid cystoscopy: a single-blind, randomized study.
Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Internal urethrotomy under local urethral anaesthesia is feasible with sedation and analgesia.Nephro-urology monthly · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPain control in outpatient rigid cystoscopy is often achieved via the application of intraurethral lidocaine jelly. This clinical trial was designed to test the effectiveness and safety of a new method to provide local anesthesia, transperineal urethrosphincteric block (TUSB), prior to rigid cystoscopy.
methodsMale patients posted for outpatient rigid cystoscopy were randomized to receive TUSB (group A) using 10-20 ml of 1% lidocaine, intraurethral 30 ml of 2% lidocaine jelly (group B) or intraurethral 30 ml of neutral jelly (group C) as a method of pain control. Following the procedure, plasma concentrations of lidocaine were measured in group A patients. Outcome assessments included mean urethral and sphincteric numerated pain scores (0-10), overall discomfort level (0-4) and plasma lidocaine levels.
resultsOne hundred and fifty patients were recruited, 50 in each group. When the three groups were compared, the ratio of group A patients with sphincteric pain score >or=2 was significantly the least. Also, the ratio of group A patients with discomfort level >or=2 was significantly less than the same ratio in either group B or C. Plasma lidocaine concentrations were within nontoxic levels and never exceeded 2.83 microg/ml in 39 subjects.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that TUSB is an effective and safe method in significantly relieving the pain associated with outpatient rigid cystoscopy. TUSB may offer urologists and anesthetists an alternative way to achieve pain control besides intraurethral lidocaine jelly during rigid cystoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.