The Use of a Jet-PhoresisTransdermal Delivery System for Pain Control – ASLMS 2010

Summary Background and Objective:

What is JetPeel?

  • A treatment based on supersonic delivery of materials, including actives, to the skin
  • Ability to simultaneously introduce active nutrients and oxygen into the skin, using pressure and air

Current Study Design:

  • Prospective clinical study to compare lidocaine jet-phoresis trans-cutaneous anesthesia to EMLA 5% topical cream
  • 20 patients that were scheduled to undergo needling roller for upper lip rhytids enrolled into study
  • Each patient served as own control – 40 lips evaluated
  • Half of the upper lip had EMLA 5% cream applied for 45 minutes
  • Contra-lateral portion of the lip treated with lidocaine 3% jetphoresis for 5 minutes
  • Pain elicited with needling roller uniformly applied across the upper lip
  • Pain response measured using VAS scale

Current Study Results:

  • Statistically significant advantage of pain control in the lidocaine jet-phoresis group compared to EMLA group
  • Jet-phoresis lidocaine pain control was better or comparable to EMLA in > 82% of lips
  • Further confirmed by reversing the sides of the tested lips in the same subjects

Background: Basic Principles

  • Pressurized gas is used to accelerate a liquid agent (saline).
  • Water droplets accelerated to supersonic velocities (200 m/s)
  • The mixture of liquid and gas is emitted through a special nozzle unit.
  • The high velocity jet exfoliates the superficial layers of the skin

jptds-1-300x230

Supersonic Technology:

  • Supersonic two-phase jet directed onto the skin with specialized handpieces and nozzles.
  • Spray consists of micro droplets of saline or supplements (actives) and gas (air, oxygen or CO2).
  • High velocity spray induces skin rejuvenation through exfoliation and supplementation.

jptds-2

Results:

  • Statistically significant advantage of pain control in the mlidocaine jet-phoresis group compared to EMLA group
  • Jet-phoresis lidocaine pain control was better or comparable to EMLA in > 82% of lips
  • Further confirmed by reversing the sides of the tested lips in the same subjects