{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030477759472817133, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015650741350906095, 'mean_word_length': 5.16751269035533, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Topical lidocaine adrenaline tetracaine (LAT gel) versus injectable buffered lidocaine for local anesthesia in laceration repair.

The objective of the study was to compare topical lidocaine adrenaline tetracaine (LAT gel) with injectable buffered lidocaine with epinephrine regarding pain of application or injection and anesthesia effectiveness. The study was a randomized prospective comparison trial in an urban emergency department. Physicians and patients ranked the pain of application, injection, and suturing according to a 10-cm visual analog scale. Sixty-six patients were entered, 33 in the LAT gel group and 33 in the injectable buffered lidocaine group. Injection was found to be significantly more painful than application of gel (P < 0.001). For anesthesia effectiveness, there was no difference according to patients (P = 0.48) or physicians (P = 0.83) for topical vs injectable forms. The number of sutures causing pain was not statistically different in the two groups (P = 0.28). In conclusion, LAT gel compared favorably with injectable buffered lidocaine for local anesthesia effectiveness and was significantly less painful to apply. It may be the preferred local anesthetic for this reason.