Premium
Biochemical and Pain Comparisons Between the Laser Lancing Device and Needle Lancets for Capillary Blood Sampling: A Randomized Control Trial
Author(s) -
Yoo Won Sang,
Min Junwon,
Chung PhilSang,
Woo Seung Hoon
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
lasers in surgery and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1096-9101
pISSN - 0196-8092
DOI - 10.1002/lsm.23298
Subject(s) - medicine , hematocrit , blood sampling , laser , surgery , anesthesia , optics , physics
Background and Objectives Patients around the world use a lancing device to perform self‐monitoring of blood sugar (SMBG). However, there are always fears of needles and pain. Therefore, less painful devices are being developed. The purpose of this study was to compare the usefulness and safety of a laser lancing device (without a needle) to a conventional needle lancet (with a needle) for capillary blood sampling. Study Design/Materials and Methods A total of 40 healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. Capillary blood was collected from a laser lancing device (without a needle) and a conventional needle lancet (with a needle) on opposite fingers, the choice of which was randomly selected. The laser lancing device (LMT‐3000) uses a 2940 nm mono‐pulse laser, a radiation field of 350 μm, laser energy of 210 mJ, and a 3.7 V battery. One week later, capillary blood was obtained by switching the devices and fingers. The biochemical measurements and pain were compared between the two groups. Puncture pain was measured on a pain scale from 0 to 10. Result All patients were tested with both a laser lancing device and a conventional needle lancet. In the biochemical analysis, the blood glucose level was 103.21 ± 17.20 mg/dl in laser lancing device group and 102.25 ± 22.44 mg/dl in the conventional needle lancet group, and there were no significant differences between the two groups ( P = 0.940). The pH, CO 2 , O 2 , lactate and hematocrit levels of the blood were no significant differences between the two groups. In the first trial, the median pain score (interquartile range) of patients using laser lancing device was 2.0 (1.0–3.0), whereas it was 2.5 (2.0–4.0) in patients using a conventional needle lancet ( P = 0.029). In the second trial, one week later, the median pain score in the laser lancing device group was 2.5 (1.0–4.0), whereas it was 3.5 (2.25–5.0) in the conventional needle lancet group ( P = 0.001). The difference in pain scores between the first and second trials was significant in the conventional needle lancet group ( P = 0.007), but not in the laser lancing device group ( P = 0.150). Conclusion There was no difference in biochemical results between the laser lancing device group and the conventional needle lancet group. The laser lancing device demonstrated comparatively lower pain than the conventional needle lancet. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC