To reduce the pain of lidocane infiltration, buffering is more effective than warming. Warming does not enhance buffering.

Objective: To compare two topical eye anesthetics, proparacaine and tetracaine, for pain of instillation and duration of activity.Methods: Volunteers received both anesthetics in a prospective, randomized, double-masked protocol. The subjects were given one drop of a study solution in the lower lid fornix of the left eye. Immediately after receiving the medication, they rated the pain of instillation on a previously validated visual-analog pain scale. This procedure was then repeated in the right eye with the other study solution. Pain scales were quantified by making measurements to the nearest millimeter from the point of scale origin to the point marked by the patient. The time interval until return of the corneal blink reflex was determined using a cotton wisp. Pain scores and the time to return of corneal reflex were analyzed by the Sign test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test, respectively, with significance defined as p < 0.05. Results:Twenty-three subjects were available for analysis. Twenty subjects reported proparacaine hurt less than tetracaine, two felt the pain was the same for the two agents, and only one reported that proparacaine was more painful. The mean pain score for tetracaine was 24 mm (100 mm maximum) higher than that for proparacaine (p < 0.0002). Proparacaine lasted 1.3 minutes longer than tetracaine, 10.7 minutes versus 9.4 minutes (p = 0.0001). Conclusion:Proparacaine eye drops cause less pain than tetracaine eye drops upon instillation. Anesthesia from proparacaine lasts slightly longer. These properties make proparacaine preferable to tetracaine.

Reported antipyretic dose at home did not predict presence of fever or height of temperature measured in the emergency department.

Previous retrospective studies have suggested that patient demographics may influence analgesic administration. These studies have not taken physicians' impression of patient pain into account. This prospective study investigates the influence of (i) physician impression of the degree of pain and (ii) patient demographics on the use of analgesic. A convenience sample of adults with non-traumatic lower back pain was studied. Possible predictors of analgesic administration included physician pain scores (assessed by visual analogue scale), patient ethnicity, gender, age, and insurance. These variables were tested individually and then using logistic regression. For the total of 91 patients enrolled, only physician pain scale was found to be associated with analgesic use. Median scores were 68 mm (interquartile range = 62-80 mm) for those receiving treatment versus 48 mm (interquartile range = 30-58 mm) for those who did not (P < 0.001). This study therefore suggests that physician impression of patient pain rather than patient demographics influences analgesic use.

No abstract