Skip to main content Accessibility help

Do we necessarily need local anaesthetics for venous cannulation? A comparison of different cannula sizes

  • K. D. Röhm (a1), T. A. H. Schöllhorn (a1), M. J. Gwosdek (a1), S. N. Piper (a1), W. H. Maleck (a2) and J. Boldt (a1)...



Background and objective: This randomized, prospective study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of a subcutaneous local anaesthetic infiltration prior to venepuncture using different cannula sizes.

Methods: Three-hundred-and-one patients were included in the study, 150 received mepivacaine 1% (0.25 mL) subcutaneously, 151 were cannulated without local analgesia. Patients were further allocated to one of five cannula size groups (standard wire gauge (G)): 20-, 18-, 17-, 16- and 14-G. They were asked to quantify the pain experienced using a four-point rating scale.

Results: In the group without local anaesthetics, 28.8% complained about pain compared to 12% receiving local analgesia. The incidence of pain for 14-G (10%) and 16-G (12.9%) cannulae was significantly reduced in the local analgesia group (P < 0.01) compared to no local analgesia (77.4% and 45.1%). Other cannula sizes showed no difference in pain whether using local analgesia or not.

Conclusions: Patients profit from a subcutaneous infiltration with mepivacaine 1% prior to intravenous cathetherization only when cannulae of size ≥16-G are inserted.


Corresponding author

Correspondence to: Kerstin Röhm, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Bremserstraße 79, D-67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany. E-mail:; Tel: +49 621 503 3000; Fax: +49 621 503 3024


Hide All


Van Wijk MGF, Smalhout B. A post-operative analysis of the patient's view of anaesthesia in a Netherlands' teaching hospital. Anaesthesia 1990; 45: 679682.
Keep PJ, Jenkins JR. From the other end of the needle.The patient's experience of routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1978; 33: 830832.
Langham BT, Harrison DA. The pressor response to venous cannulation: attenuation by prior infiltration with local anaesthetic. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70: 519521.
Harrison N, Langham BT, Bogod DG. Appropriate use of local anaesthetic for venous cannulation. Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 210212.
Langham BT, Harrison N. Local anaesthetic: does it really reduce the pain of insertion of all size of venous cannula? Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 890891.
Hopkins CS, Buckley CJ, Bush GH. Painfree injections in infants; use of a lignocaine–prilocaine cream to prevent pain at intravenous induction of anaesthesia in 1–5 year-old children. Anaesthesia 1988; 43: 198201.
Soliman IE, Broadman LM, Hannallah RS, McGill WA. Comparison of the analgesic effects of EMLA (eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics) to intradermal lidocaine infiltration prior to venous cannulation in unpremedicated children. Anesthesiology 1988; 68: 804806.
Smith M, Gray BM, Ingram S, Jewkes DA. Double-blind comparison of topical lignocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA) and lignocaine infiltration for arterial cannulation in adults. Br J Anaesth 1990; 65: 240242.
Raatz U. A modification of the White tests for large random samples. Biometr Zeitschr 1966; 8: 4254.
Hallen B, Olsson GL, Uppfeldt A. Pain free venepuncture. Effect of timing of application of local anaesthetic cream. Anaesthesia 1984; 39: 969972.
Selby IR, Bowles BJM. Analgesia for venous cannulation: a comparison of EMLA (5 minutes application), lignocaine, ethyl chloride, and nothing. J Roy Soc Med 1995; 88: 264267.
Gershon RY, Modriski BK, Matjasko MJ. Intradermal anesthesia and comparison of intravenous catheter gauge. Anesth Analg 1991; 73: 469470.
Prien T. Intradermal anaesthesia: comparison of several compounds. Acta Anaesth Scand 1994; 38: 805807.
O'Connor PJ, Caldicott LD. Local anaesthesia and venous cannulation. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 1005.
Holdgate A, Wong G. Does local anaesthetic affect the success rate of intravenous cannulation? Anesth Intens Care 1999; 27: 257259.


Do we necessarily need local anaesthetics for venous cannulation? A comparison of different cannula sizes

  • K. D. Röhm (a1), T. A. H. Schöllhorn (a1), M. J. Gwosdek (a1), S. N. Piper (a1), W. H. Maleck (a2) and J. Boldt (a1)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed