Literature DB >> 20027030

Paracervical block efficacy in office hysteroscopic sterilization: a randomized controlled trial.

Scott Chudnoff1, Mark Einstein, Mark Levie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy of paracervical block compared with saline for pain relief during office hysteroscopic sterilization.
METHODS: This study was a randomized, placebo-controlled study of women desiring hysteroscopic sterilization. A paracervical block of 1% lidocaine or normal saline was administered before office hysteroscopic sterilization. Patients and investigators were blinded to assignments. A pre hoc power analysis determined that 40 women would be required per arm to detect a difference of 0.9 cm on a visual analog scale. Pain was recorded on a visual analog scale at multiple procedure time points. Individualized standardized pain scores were constructed by weighted reporting of objective and subjective sensation.
RESULTS: A total of 103 consecutive women were eligible, and 80 women were randomized, with 40 per group. Thirty-seven (93%) in each group had successful placement. The lidocaine group showed significantly lower pain scores for tenaculum placement (mean+/-standard deviation: 0.97+/-1.28 compared with 3.00+/-2.41, P<.001) traversing the external cervical os (1.46+/-1.71 compared with 3.77+/-2.68, P<.001) and internal os (1.79+/-2.11 compared with 4.10+/-2.77, P<.001). There was no significant observed difference with device placement in tubal ostium (3.15+/-2.69 compared with 3.74+/-2.73, P=.33). Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated a relationship of pain to procedural time (P=.047) and to group assignment (P<.01).
CONCLUSION: Paracervical block with 1% lidocaine provides effective pain relief for cervical manipulations during office hysteroscopic sterilization, but does not reduce the pain associated with upper uterine/tubal manipulation when placing the devices. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00811187. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20027030     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c51ace

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  5 in total

Review 1.  A Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Essure® Procedural Placement Success Rates on First Attempt.

Authors:  Gabriel Frietze; Ophra Leyser-Whalen; Mahbubur Rahman; Mahta Rouhani; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  2015-12-01

2.  Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the Essure™ procedure.

Authors:  Collette R Lessard; Matthew R Hopkins
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 2.711

3.  Randomized comparative trial of cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of polyps and myomas.

Authors:  Andrea S Lukes; Kelly H Roy; James B Presthus; Michael P Diamond; Jay M Berman; Kenneth A Konsker
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2015-10-13

4.  Evaluation of Paracervical Block and IV Sedation for Pain Management during Hysteroscopic Polypectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Zahra Asgari; Maryam Razavi; Reihaneh Hosseini; Masoumeh Nataj; Mahroo Rezaeinejad; Mahdi Sepidarkish
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 3.037

5.  Deep Sedation or Paracervical Block for Daycare Gynecological Procedures: A Prospective, Comparative Study.

Authors:  Nishant Sahay; Mukta Agarwal; Mamta Bara; Nutan Raj; Divendu Bhushan
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2019-10-24
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.