Lidocaine/Prilocaine

To minimize the risk of developing foot-ulcers, persons with diabetes are given the advice to daily inspect their feet and to apply skincare formulations. However, commercially available skincare products have rarely been developed and evaluated for diabetes foot care specifically. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate the effects in reducing foot xerosis in persons with diabetes without foot-ulcers using two skincare creams containing different humectants (interventions) against a cream base non-humectant (comparator). Secondary outcomes are to evaluate differences on skin barrier integrity, low-molecular weight biomarkers and skin microbiota, microcirculation including transcutaneous oxygen pressure, degree of neuropathy, and HbA1c between intervention-comparator creams.

Two-armed double-blind RCT, registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06427889. With 80 % power, two-tailed significance of 2.5 % in each arm, 39 study persons is needed in each arm, total 78 persons, 98 including dropouts, to be able to prove a reduction of at least one category in the Xerosis Severity Scale with the intervention creams compared to the comparator. In one arm, each participant will treat one foot with one of the intervention creams (Oviderm® or Canoderm®), while the opposite foot will be treated with the comparator cream (Decubal®lipid cream), twice a day. If needed, participants are enrolled after a wash-out period of two weeks. The participants will undergo examinations at baseline, day 14 and day 28.

This RCT evaluate the potential effects of humectants in skin creams against foot xerosis in persons with diabetes.

To evaluate the effectiveness of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetic (EMLA), a topical anesthetic cream, in office-based invasive andrological procedures such as hydrocelectomy, spermatocelectomy, and others, aimed at minimizing pain perception and enhancing the overall patient experience.

A double-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted for patients undergoing scrotal andrology surgeries under LA. Power calculation was performed with an estimated sample size of 72. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to topical EMLA + LA versus LA alone. In the post-operative recovery area, patient will be asked to complete a VAS questionnaire rating pain with LA administration and pain with procedure. Analysis comparing VAS pain scores of both groups was performed using the independent sample t-test method.

Seventy-two patients were included in our analysis, with 36 in the control and 36 in the intervention arm. For patient pain with administration of LA, the control arm reported an average VAS pain score of 4.31, compared to 3.72 in the intervention arm (P = .319). For patient pain with procedure, patients in the control arm reported a median VAS pain score of 3.47 compared to 3.03 (P = .432) in the intervention arm. Overall, 86% (62/72) of patients reported that they would either be "very likely" (4/5) or "highly likely" (5/5) to undergo future procedures under local anesthetic.

While performing scrotal surgeries under LA appears to be well tolerated and a feasible option, the application of EMLA cream does not appear to significantly alter patient-reported outcomes.