Efficacy of EMLA(R) for Pain Relief during PhotodynamicTherapy in the Treatment of Common Warts.
- Author:
Yeon Jin CHOI
1
;
Ji Young AHN
;
Mi Youn PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Dermatology, National Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. younskin@naver.com
- Publication Type:Randomized Controlled Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Common wart;
EMLA(R);
Pain;
Photodynamic therapy
- MeSH:
Anesthesia;
Burns;
Cross-Over Studies;
Humans;
Light;
Photochemotherapy;
Triazenes;
Warts
- From:Korean Journal of Dermatology
2008;46(6):757-760
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) in the treatment of warts is known to be a relatively effective and safe cure. However, the pain, which occurs during being exposed to a light source and after its exposure, is being reported to be the most frequent and serious limitation in this therapy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine whether the level of pain can be lowered, by comparing EMLA(R), which is a topical anesthesia, with placebo, during topical ALA-PDT, and to try to compare the range and characteristics in pain. METHODS: Twenty two patients with common warts were treated with ALA-PDT twice in the interval of 4 weeks, and were divided into two groups by the random distribution table. The distribution was made so that the patients, who used EMLA(R) as the topical anesthesia given at the first visit, could use a placebo at the second visit, and so that the patients who used placebo at the first visit, could use EMLA(R) at the second visit. Thus, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study was carried out. The pain was evaluated during the treatment, right after the treatment, and one day after the treatment by using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Also four different ranges of the pain and its six characteristics were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients with common warts who underwent this study. 1 patient, was completely cured after the first visit, and did not participate further in the study. The data of the patients with complete recovery wasn't included in the final statistical analysis. As a result of the evaluation of pain, the mean VAS score that was measured during the treatment, right after the treatment, and one day after the treatment was measured to be a little lower in the case of applying EMLA(R) versus placebo, but a statistically significant difference was not observed. Regarding the degree of pain, regardless of applying EMLA(R), most patients felt painful locally on the surface, and the majority complained of burning and shooting pain. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists tend to routinely apply EMLA(R), prior to a procedure in order to decrease pain. However, as a result of this research, the routine use of EMLA(R) given at PDT is thought to be unreasonable.
