Resistance to local anesthesia in people with the Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes presenting for dental surgery
10.17245/jdapm.2019.19.5.261
- Author:
Jane R SCHUBART
1
;
Eric SCHAEFER
;
Piotr JANICKI
;
Sanjib D ADHIKARY
;
Amber SCHILLING
;
Alan J HAKIM
;
Rebecca BASCOM
;
Clair A FRANCOMANO
;
Satish R RAJ
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. jschubart@pennstatehealth.psu.edu
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Dental Care;
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome;
Local Anesthetics
- MeSH:
Anesthesia, Local;
Anesthetics, Local;
Bupivacaine;
Carticaine;
Cohort Studies;
Connective Tissue;
Dental Care;
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome;
Friends;
Humans;
Lidocaine;
Mepivacaine;
Procaine;
Social Media;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
2019;19(5):261-270
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: People with the Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS), a group of heritable disorders of connective tissue, often report experiencing dental procedure pain despite local anesthetic (LA) use. Clinicians have been uncertain how to interpret this apparent LA resistance, as comparison of EDS and non-EDS patient experience is limited to anecdotal evidence and small case series. The primary goal of this hypothesis-generating study was to investigate the recalled adequacy of pain prevention with LA administered during dental procedures in a large cohort of people with and without EDS. A secondary exploratory aim asked people with EDS to recall comparative LA experiences. METHODS: We administered an online survey through various social media platforms to people with EDS and their friends without EDS, asking about past dental procedures, LA exposures, and the adequacy of procedure pain prevention. Among EDS respondents who both received LA and recalled the specific LA used, we compared agent-specific pain prevention for lidocaine, procaine, bupivacaine, mepivacaine, and articaine. RESULTS: Among the 980 EDS respondents who had undergone a dental procedure LA, 88% (n = 860) recalled inadequate pain prevention. Among 249 non EDS respondents only 33% (n = 83) recalled inadequate pain prevention (P < 0.001 compared to EDS respondents). The agent with the highest EDS-respondent reported success rate was articaine (30%), followed by bupivacaine (25%), and mepivacaine (22%). CONCLUSIONS: EDS survey respondents reported nearly three times the rate of LA non-response compared to non-EDS respondents, suggesting that LAs were less effective in preventing their pain associated with routine office dental procedures.
