Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:53:04.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Single-use lidocaine hydrochloride 5 per cent w/v and phenylephrine hydrochloride 0.5 per cent w/v topical spray; can it now be employed as a multi-use atomiser?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2020

M Jog ,
I Zudovaite ,
M O'Dwyer ,
K Saeed  and
T Singh
M Jog*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK
I Zudovaite
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and Microbiology and Innovation Research Unit, UK
M O'Dwyer
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and Microbiology and Innovation Research Unit, UK
K Saeed
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and Microbiology and Innovation Research Unit, UK School of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK
T Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Mr Mandar Jog, Department of Otolaryngology, Mail point OEN, A Level, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brintons Terrace, SouthamptonSO14 0YG, UK E-mail: Mandar.Jog@uhs.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study investigated the risk of contamination of lidocaine hydrochloride 5 per cent w/v and phenylephrine hydrochloride 0.5 per cent w/v topical solution after modification of the application technique.

Methods

This paper reports a prospective basic sciences study involving 22 study samples and 1 control sample of the lidocaine hydrochloride and phenylephrine hydrochloride topical anaesthetic spray. The samples were assessed for microbiological contamination after a single use on patients using a modified application technique. The modification involves keeping the nozzle (actuator) pressed down whilst withdrawing the spray to at least 30 cm (1 ft) from the patient, before releasing the nozzle (actuator) and subsequently reapplying the spray.

Results

Three of the 23 samples confirmed bacterial growth in the bottle contents, but there was no growth in any of the samples from the pump. These bacteria are considered to be contaminants.

Conclusion

There is a potential to use the lidocaine hydrochloride 5 per cent w/v and phenylephrine hydrochloride 0.5 per cent w/v topical solution as a multi-use spray by changing the actuator between patients. This would have significant beneficial cost implications without the attendant infection control risk.

Keywords

Anesthetics, LocalCross InfectionLidocainePhenylephrineEndoscopyDrug Contamination
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 134 , Issue 9 , September 2020 , pp. 826 - 829
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Mr M Jog takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Aurum Pharmaceuticals. Lidocaine HCL 5%w/v and Phenylephrine HCL 0.5%w/v Topical Solution. In: https://www.drugs.com/uk/lidocaine-hcl-5-w-v-and-phenylephrine-hcl-0-5-w-v-topical-solution-leaflet.html [23 August 2020]Google Scholar
Jog, M, Sachidananda, R, Saeed, K. Risk of contamination of lidocaine hydrochloride and phenylephrine hydrochloride topical solution: in vivo and in vitro analyses. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:799–801CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bossart, PJ, Wolfe, T. Venturi atomizers as potential sources of patient cross-infection. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:441–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubin, MG, White, DR, Melroy, CT, Gergan, MT, Rutala, WA, Senior, BA. Multi-use Venturi nasal atomizer contamination in a clinical rhinologic practice. Am J Rhinol 2004;18:151–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scianna, JM, Chow, JM, Hotaling, A. Analysis of possible cross-contamination with the Venturi system atomizer. Am J Rhinol 2005;19:503–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spraggs, PD, Hanekom, WH, Mochloulis, G, Joseph, T, Kelsey, MC. The assessment of the risk of cross-infection with a multi-use nasal atomizer. J Hosp Infect 1994;28:315–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, TR, Hillman, TA, Bossart, PJ. The comparative risks of bacterial contamination between a Venturi atomizer and a positive displacement atomizer. Am J Rhinol 2002;16:181–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunkaraneni, VS, Jones, SE. Topical anaesthetic or vasoconstrictor preparations for flexible fibre-optic nasal pharyngoscopy and laryngoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(3):CD005606Google ScholarPubMed
Coakley, JF, Arthurs, GJ, Wilsher, TK. The need for and development of a single use disposable nasal spray. J Laryngol Otol 1993;107:20–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rashid, M, Karagama, YG. Study of microbial spread when using multiple-use nasal anaesthetic spray. Rhinology 2011;49:281–5Google ScholarPubMed
Visosky, AM, Murr, AH, Ng, V, Dentoni, T, Weir, J, Haller, BL. Multiple-use atomizers in outpatient otolaryngology clinics are not necessarily an infectious risk. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;128:447–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar