PURPOSE: We describe pain scores for a modified anesthesia technique for no-scalpel vasectomy using a 1-inch 30 gauge mini-needle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed in 277 patients who received anesthesia using a 3 cc syringe filled with approximately 2 cc 2% lidocaine without epinephrine and a 1-inch 30 gauge needle. Local anesthesia was given directly to the vas at the expected surgical site on each side. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD pain intensity score on the 10 cm visual analog scale was 1.5 +/- 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-1.7) during the anesthesia and 0.6 +/- 1.0 (95% CI 0.5-0.7) during the procedure. Patients experienced less pain during anesthesia and the procedure than they expected before vasectomy (average 3.1 +/- 1.8, 95% CI 2.8-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: The mini-needle technique provides excellent anesthesia for no-scalpel vasectomy. It compares favorably to the standard vasal block and other anesthetic alternatives with the additional benefit of minimal equipment and less anesthesia. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: We describe pain scores for a modified anesthesia technique for no-scalpel vasectomy using a 1-inch 30 gauge mini-needle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed in 277 patients who received anesthesia using a 3 cc syringe filled with approximately 2 cc 2% lidocaine without epinephrine and a 1-inch 30 gauge needle. Local anesthesia was given directly to the vas at the expected surgical site on each side. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD pain intensity score on the 10 cm visual analog scale was 1.5 +/- 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-1.7) during the anesthesia and 0.6 +/- 1.0 (95% CI 0.5-0.7) during the procedure. Patients experienced less pain during anesthesia and the procedure than they expected before vasectomy (average 3.1 +/- 1.8, 95% CI 2.8-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: The mini-needle technique provides excellent anesthesia for no-scalpel vasectomy. It compares favorably to the standard vasal block and other anesthetic alternatives with the additional benefit of minimal equipment and less anesthesia. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Sarah Miller; Sophie Couture; Gareth James; Simon Plourde; Jacky Rioux; Michel Labrecque Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.541