Lidocaine 200mg/10ml (2%) / Adrenaline (base) 50micrograms/10ml (1 in 200,000) solution for injection ampoules

Background: Cardiac arrest is a time-critical medical emergency during which prompt and effective drug delivery plays a key role in patient outcomes. Current resuscitation guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) access as the first-line route, with intraosseous (IO) access recommended as an alternative when IV access is delayed or not feasible. Although the endotracheal (ET) route was previously included in resuscitation protocols, it is no longer recommended. This study aims to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of resuscitation drugs administered through different injection sites and under varying hemodynamic conditions in in vivo animal models. Methods: PubMed, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to August 2025 for studies comparing different injection sites for the same drug (adrenaline/epinephrine, amiodarone, lidocaine and vasopressin) during CPR. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed independently by two reviewers. Frequentist random-effects models were used to calculate mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Fourteen prospective experimental studies (sample sizes ranging from 15 to 49 animals) conducted on swine were included. For epinephrine under normovolemia, humeral IO (HIO) access achieved significantly higher maximum concentrations (Cmax; p = 0.0238) and a shorter time to the maximum concentration (Tmax; p p = 0.0681). Under hypovolemia, IV access proved superiority over IO for epinephrine administration (MD = +382.80 ng/mL; p = 0.0022). The time to ROSC was significantly shorter with sternal IO (SIO) compared to tibial IO (TIO) (p = 0.0109). For amiodarone and vasopressin, no consistent or statistically significant differences were observed between administration routes, and in several cases, the findings were based on a single study. Conclusions: The injection site significantly influences the PK and PD of epinephrine during cardiac arrest. Proximal IO routes may offer advantages under normovolemic conditions, while IV access appears superior in cases of hypovolemic shock. Further research is needed to guide optimal drug delivery in varying hemodynamic conditions during cardiac arrest.

Abstract licence: CC BY

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of various anesthetic protocols for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, comparing techniques and agents to identify the optimal anesthesia approach.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases up to July 10, 2025, identifying relevant studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the success rate of anesthesia. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using a pre-designed form and the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis when heterogeneity was low (I 2 ≤ 50%, p ≥ 0.1); otherwise, a random-effects model was adopted. Additionally, another model was employed for validation, and the results from both models were compared to derive more reasonable conclusions. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and the Egger test.ResultsFourteen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that modified anesthetic protocols for SIP were 3.62 times more successful than conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using standard 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (OR = 3.34; 95% CI: 2.49-4.48). Studies conducted in Iran had the highest success rate (OR = 4.31; 95% CI: 3.59-5.17, p p p ConclusionThis meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of various anesthetic protocols for SIP, comparing techniques and agents to identify the optimal anesthesia approach.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, PROSPERO database CRD42025638427.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background/Objectives: Local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a rare but potentially fatal complication of dental and oral and maxillofacial surgical local anaesthesia (LA). Three amide agents are commonly used in the UK: lignocaine (lidocaine) 2% with adrenaline 1:80,000; articaine 4% with adrenaline 1:100,000 (2.2 mL cartridges); and bupivacaine 0.5%. Clinically significant discrepancies between guideline sources for maximum recommended dosages (MRDs) persist, and the additive toxicity of combined amide agents remains underappreciated. The objectives are: to provide clear, evidence-appraised MRD guidance for dental practitioners; to explain safe combination dosing using the fractional dose rule with acknowledgement of its pharmacokinetic limitations; and to outline recognition and management of LAST, including intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) therapy, setting-stratified response, and differential diagnosis. Methods: These include the following: narrative review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, and Embase (inception to May 2026), supplemented by key regulatory documents (British National Formulary (BNF) 91; US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prescribing information; UK Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs)); major guideline documents (American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) 2018; Association of Anaesthetists 2021; Resuscitation Council UK 2021); systematic reviews; and peer-reviewed literature, ranked by a jurisdiction-specific UK prescribing and regulatory source hierarchy. Results: BNF 91 and the FDA both support a 7 mg/kg (500 mg) MRD for lignocaine with adrenaline; in practice, the adrenaline ceiling limits administration to 6-7 cartridges (2.2 mL) regardless of the guideline followed. The principal reasons for caution when combining amide agents are; additive systemic toxicity, more complex dose calculation, absence of proven clinical benefit for concurrent mixing, unnecessary drug exposure, and incremental hypersensitivity risk-not metabolic pathway differences. The fractional dose rule is a pharmacologically justified safety heuristic with acknowledged pharmacokinetic limitations. ILE is a specific rescue therapy for severe or cardiovascular LAST; airway support and oxygenation remain the primary interventions. Patient-specific factors substantially lower the effective toxic threshold. Conclusions: Safe LA administration in oral surgery requires systematic MRD calculation, application of the fractional dose rule for combined-agent appointments, attention to patient-specific risk factors, setting-appropriate emergency preparedness, and structured differential diagnosis to distinguish LAST from more common dental emergencies.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background and Objectives: The role of tourniquet use in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy remains debatable. While traditionally adopted to enhance visualization and reduce intraoperative bleeding, concerns were raised regarding its impact on postoperative outcomes and potential adverse effects, such as muscle damage or delayed recovery. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the use of a tourniquet offers advantages in terms of surgical efficiency, patient recovery and complication rates in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42025644740). A comprehensive literature search was performed in 5 databases including studies from the past 20 years. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tourniquet-assisted versus non-tourniquet procedures in adolescent and adult patients undergoing isolated arthroscopic partial meniscectomy matched our inclusion criteria and the analysis was performed on those. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Data were synthesized either quantitatively or narratively, depending on the availability of statistical details. Results: Three RCTs with a total of 243 patients met the inclusion criteria. Operative time was shorter in tourniquet-assisted procedures in one study (p = 0.001), though comparable outcomes were achieved in non-tourniquet groups when pharmacological agents such as intra-articular adrenaline were used. No significant differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative pain (p = 0.22, p = 0.43), knee effusion (p = 0.96), range of motion (p = 0.91, p = 0.96), or time to return to functional activities (p = 0.9, p = 0.34, p = 0.23). Muscle damage, assessed by serum creatine phosphokinase CPK levels, did not differ between groups (p = 0.3, p = 0.093, p = 0.079). Intraoperative visibility and surgeon satisfaction rated higher in tourniquet groups (p = 0.002), although this was subjective and reported variably. No major tourniquet-related complications were recorded. Conclusions: The routine use of a tourniquet in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides limited intraoperative advantages and does not improve postoperative outcomes. Current evidence supports a selective rather than routine use of tourniquets, especially when pharmacological alternatives are available. Further high-quality studies are needed to define standardized protocols and assess long-term outcomes.

Abstract licence: CC BY