Begüm Z Özel1, Vanessa Sun2, Avita Pahwa2, Rebecca Nelken2, Christina E Dancz2. 1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. ozel@usc.edu. 2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of the study was to determine if there is a difference in pain during and after multichannel urodynamic testing in women when using 2% lidocaine gel versus water-based lubricant. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. Women scheduled to undergo urodynamic testing were invited to participate. Participants were randomized to lidocaine 2% gel or water-based lubricant for use during testing. Both participant and examiner were blinded to the type of gel. Pain was assessed by the Wong-Baker pain scale from 0 to 10 at four points during the examination. After testing, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their expectations of pain and embarrassment with urodynamic testing. The examiner also completed a questionnaire to assess his/her impression of the participant's pain during the procedure. RESULTS: The women in the lidocaine group had lower pain scores after the cotton tipped swab test (1.3 vs 3.6, lidocaine vs lubricant respectively, p < 0.001) and after placement of urodynamic catheters (1.4 vs 3.9, lidocaine vs lubricant, respectively, p < 0.001). Mean pain scores 30 min post-completion of the study were similar between groups (0.7 vs 1.2, 1.4 vs 3.9, lidocaine vs lubricant respectively, p = 0.19). Participants reported that pain during the study was better than expected in both groups. Physician perception of the participant's pain during testing was lower in the lidocaine group (2 vs 3, lidocaine vs lubricant respectively p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Use of 2% lidocaine gel during in and out catheterization, cotton-tipped swab test, and urodynamic testing decreases pain during these procedures.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of the study was to determine if there is a difference in pain during and after multichannel urodynamic testing in women when using 2% lidocaine gel versus water-based lubricant. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. Women scheduled to undergo urodynamic testing were invited to participate. Participants were randomized to lidocaine 2% gel or water-based lubricant for use during testing. Both participant and examiner were blinded to the type of gel. Pain was assessed by the Wong-Baker pain scale from 0 to 10 at four points during the examination. After testing, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their expectations of pain and embarrassment with urodynamic testing. The examiner also completed a questionnaire to assess his/her impression of the participant's pain during the procedure. RESULTS: The women in the lidocaine group had lower pain scores after the cotton tipped swab test (1.3 vs 3.6, lidocaine vs lubricant respectively, p < 0.001) and after placement of urodynamic catheters (1.4 vs 3.9, lidocaine vs lubricant, respectively, p < 0.001). Mean pain scores 30 min post-completion of the study were similar between groups (0.7 vs 1.2, 1.4 vs 3.9, lidocaine vs lubricant respectively, p = 0.19). Participants reported that pain during the study was better than expected in both groups. Physician perception of the participant's pain during testing was lower in the lidocaine group (2 vs 3, lidocaine vs lubricant respectively p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Use of 2% lidocaine gel during in and out catheterization, cotton-tipped swab test, and urodynamic testing decreases pain during these procedures.
Authors: Christopher Chung; Matthew Chu; Richard Paoloni; Mary-Jane O'Brien; Tasha Demel Journal: Emerg Med Australas Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.151