BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the topical anesthetic lignocaine, adrenaline, and tetracaine (LAT) (4% lignocaine, 1:2000 adrenaline, 1% tetracaine) with the conventional lignocaine infiltration(LI) for repair of minor lacerations, for the comfort of anesthetic administration, efficacy, adverse effects and cost. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial. Forty Asian patients who required toilet and suture for minor lacerations in the emergency department of the Singapore General Hospital over a 4-month period. The patients were assigned randomly to 2 arms of treatment. The first was the LAT gel group who had LAT gel applied to the laceration prior to suturing. The second was the control group in whom the anesthetic administered was lignocaine infiltration (LI) via a syringe. The pain of the process of administering anesthetic and efficacy of anesthesia were scored using the visual pain scale included within. The efficacy of LAT vs. lignocaine infiltration as an anesthetic prior to the toilet and suture of minor lacerations and complications of therapy. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomized to LAT gel and 16 to LI on an intention to treat analysis. The mean pain score by patients in the LAT gel group was 2.5 (0.52 SE), and 2.5 (0.58 SE) in the LI group. The pain score for pain during application of the anesthetic was 1.5 (0.40) in the LAT gel group, and 3.5 (0.46) in the LI group. There was no difference in complications between the LAT and LI groups. CONCLUSION: LAT gel prior to the toilet and suture of minor lacerations is proven to be as efficacious as LI in terms of patient comfort and effectiveness of anesthesia. The complications are also comparable to those treated with LI.

The objective of this study wasto determine the factorial validity of the Chinese version of the General Family Functioning subscale (GF-12) and to assess parents’ perceived family functioning of children with or without chronic respiratory disease in Malaysia. Thirty two parents of children with chronic respiratory disease and 30 parents of healthy children were recruited. The GF-12 was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that our instrument was a 1-factor model assessing general family functioning. Cronbach’s α value was 0.950. Test-retest reliability coefficient ranged from 0.490-0.790. The overall mean (standard deviation) score was not significantly different between parent’s perceived family functioning of children with or without respiratory disease [1.83(0.63) versus 1.65(0.46), p=0.385]. The Chinese version of the GF-12 was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess family functioning in Malaysia. Parents in the present study showed healthy perceived family functioning (total score >2.00)