{"id":1217,"date":"2016-01-12T20:46:13","date_gmt":"2016-01-12T19:46:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/?p=1217"},"modified":"2016-01-13T14:21:20","modified_gmt":"2016-01-13T13:21:20","slug":"well-i-never-thought-of-that","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/2016\/01\/12\/well-i-never-thought-of-that\/","title":{"rendered":"Well I never thought of that …"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Urinary_catheter\"<\/a>For no particular reason I can think of I bumped into this RCT of “Intraurethral Lidocaine for Urethral Catheterization in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial<\/a>” and thought, initially, “Well that’s a waste of money and effort and quite unreasonably uncomfortable for the poor little things that got un-anesthetised”. (My very first job was on an adult urology firm, and after popping in a few more three-way irrigation catheters than anyone should need to do I came to the vicarious experiential position that anaesthetic would be a good thing for catheterisation.)<\/p>\n

But I read on.<\/p>\n

Turns out that compared with just plain, un-medicated lubrication, popping in some anaesthetic doesn’t make it better. Indeed, it might make it worse – as it stings when the lidocaine goes down – and the catheter is equally as uncomfortable.<\/p>\n

Which makes me wonder – what have you turned up in your reading \/ learning that made you question perfectly sensible assumptions?<\/p>\n