Talk:Local anesthesia

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Local anesthesia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Combine Local anesthesia and Regional anesthesia into a Conduction anesthesia page

Currently conduction anesthesia is just redirected to Local Anesthesia, but I think it should be the other way around and the Conduction Anesthesia page should have portions dedicated to local and regional. The regional anesthesia page is a mess. It has not been revisited in years and there is a lot of overlapping information. I'm going to make the change soon unless there is a lot of talk opposing it. Chursaner (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The

The section "Uses in Chronic Pain" is extremely POV, is in direct conflict with other Wikipedia articles, and contains "facts" that many qualified to judge would consider to be just plain wrong. In particular, the following phrase:

"On the other hand, some other classes of centrally acting substances like for example opioids (they are unfortunately still often used in the treatment of chronic pain, including local pain in the peripheral nerve system) are extremely harmful and should be avoided in the treatment of chronic pain at all costs."

Should be contrasted with the article Opioid, where it states:

"Opioids have long been used to treat acute pain (such as post-operative pain). They have also found to be invaluable in palliative care to alleviate the severe, chronic, disabling pain of terminal conditions such as cancer. Very high doses are often required in palliation to improve the patients' terminal quality-of-life.

In recent years there has been an increased use of opioids in the management of non-malignant chronic pain. While this trend is still somewhat controversial in some circles, due to issues of dependence, the emerging medical consensus is that most chronic pain patients can safely use opioids for years with a minimal risk of addiction or toxicity and that the overall increase in quality of life outweighs any adverse effects of opioid use."

The latter is the general consensus regarding the use of opioid medications for the treatment of chronic pain. It should also be noted that the UN has recently (2005) determined that access to effective control of chronic pain is a basic human right.

As a result, I've changed this section to (1) refer to the article [[Opioid] and (2) to point out that there are some who view the use of opioids as a bad idea when treating Chronic Pain, although this is not the consensus or the opinion of the UN and WHO.

Johnpf 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the whole section with a short overview, as the text that we had really did not belong here but rather into pain therapy. I have moved it to Talk:Pain management. Kosebamse 08:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Local Anaesthetic

Chiss Boy 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall we had this discussion a couple of years back, when it was decided that this article should remain separate. As I recall:

There is a difference between the chemistry/pharmacology and the practice of local anesthesia

The resulting article would be too long

There is already a precedent with Pain Management and Analgesic

I say keep separate - I think the verb and the noun deserve different articles

Johnpf 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above and am therefore removing the merge template --Lox (t,c) 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a difference between the general practice of local anesthesia and the drug group of local anesthetics, just as with pain management and the analgesic drugs, so, IMPOV, they should remain separate. However, the main problem with this article is that much of the text is about the drugs rather than the general practice. I'll try to fix some of it now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to B-class

This article could be rated B-class if it included some references. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Revision

"Lip stitching - a local anesthesia can also be injected into the lip when having stitches there, as the needle goes in it is extremely painful and must be injected in to several different places in the lip for it to work. Then the pain is over until the stitches are in. You can actually feel the stitch-needle go in to your lip tissue."

I am not experienced in editing Wikipedia, but this seems to be very out of place. It is poorly constructed, and sounds like someones personal experience more than fact. I also had other obvious grammar and spelling mistakes which I fixed. 142.177.110.53 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title:anesthesia/analgesia

I think it would be better to have this article under the title 'Local analgesia'. While anesthesia refers to a complete loss of feeling, analgesia refers only to insensibility to pain (per OED). In addition, for some anesthetists anaesthesia implies loss of consciousness. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name Local anesthesia should remain for this article, because it is the broader sense. Local analgesia redirects to here. I just tried to explain the relation in this revision. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move? 20 January 2015

Consensus is that the text of the articles should be merged and located at Local anesthesia. Sunrise (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With or without text-merging them, and put the merged page where? (To avoid a move war developing) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I support a merge of the articles, I am not sure which would be the best title as base.

"Conduction anesthesia" OR "Conduction anesthetic" gets "About 14,500 results" in books

"Local anesthesia" OR "Local anesthetic" gets "About 745,000 results" in books

Greg Kaye 14:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge/move to local anaesthesia, which I believe t be the more common name per above. Also supported by the n-gram [1]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and locate at Local anesthesia per WP:COMMONNAME — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to local anesthesia as that is what it is usually called. Never heard of the term conduction anesthesia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.