| Title |
Application of a three-microneedle device for the delivery of local anesthetics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s76540 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kayoko Ishikawa, Hidekazu Fukamizu, Tetsuya Takiguchi, Yusuke Ohta, Yoshiki Tokura |
| Abstract |
We investigated the effectiveness of a newly developed device for the delivery of local anesthetics in the treatment of axillary osmidrosis and hyperhidrosis. We developed a device with three fine, stainless steel needles fabricated with a bevel angle facing outside ("three-microneedle device" [TMD]) to release a drug broadly and homogeneously into tissue in the horizontal plane. Use of this device could reduce the risk of complications when transcutaneous injections are undertaken. Sixteen Japanese patients were enrolled. The mean volume of lidocaine hydrochloride per unit area needed to elicit anesthesia when using a TMD was compared with that the volume required when using a conventional 27-gauge needle. The visual analog scale (VAS) score of needlestick pain and injection-associated pain was also compared. The mean volume of lidocaine hydrochloride per unit area to elicit anesthesia using the TMD was significantly lower than that the volume required when using the conventional 27-gauge needle. The VAS score of needlestick pain for the TMD was significantly lower than that the VAS score for the 27-gauge needle. These data suggest that the TMD could be useful for the delivery of local anesthetics in terms of clinical efficacy and avoidance of adverse effects. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 63% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,648
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,617
of 279,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.