Paracervical block efficacy in office hysteroscopic sterilization: a randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 20027030
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c51ace
Paracervical block efficacy in office hysteroscopic sterilization: a randomized controlled trial
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.
Similar articles
-
Nitrous oxide for pain management during in-office hysteroscopic sterilization: a randomized controlled trial.Contraception. 2017 Mar;95(3):239-244. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.09.006. Epub 2016 Sep 9. Contraception. 2017. PMID: 27621048 Clinical Trial.
-
Self-Administered Lidocaine Gel for Pain Control With First-Trimester Surgical Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;128(2):297-303. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001532. Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 27400015 Clinical Trial.
-
Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Mar;222(3):245.e1-245.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.013. Epub 2019 Sep 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020. PMID: 31541635 Clinical Trial.
-
Uterine or paracervical lidocaine application for pain control during intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018 Jun;23(3):207-217. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1469124. Epub 2018 May 24. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018. PMID: 29792756
-
Methods of pain control during endometrial biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Jan;46(1):9-30. doi: 10.1111/jog.14152. Epub 2019 Oct 30. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020. PMID: 31667985
Cited by
-
A Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Essure® Procedural Placement Success Rates on First Attempt.J Gynecol Surg. 2015 Dec 1;31(6):308-317. doi: 10.1089/gyn.2015.0054. J Gynecol Surg. 2015. PMID: 26633935 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Design of a syringe extension device (Chloe SED®) for low-resource settings in sub-Saharan Africa: a circular economy approach.Front Med Technol. 2023 Sep 1;5:1183179. doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2023.1183179. eCollection 2023. Front Med Technol. 2023. PMID: 37727273 Free PMC article.
-
Randomized comparative trial of cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of polyps and myomas.Int J Womens Health. 2015 Oct 13;7:833-9. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S50101. eCollection 2015. Int J Womens Health. 2015. PMID: 26543383 Free PMC article.
-
Deep Sedation or Paracervical Block for Daycare Gynecological Procedures: A Prospective, Comparative Study.Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2019 Oct 24;8(4):160-164. doi: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_12_19. eCollection 2019 Oct-Dec. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2019. PMID: 31741841 Free PMC article.
-
Pain management for tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;2012(8):CD009251. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009251.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID: 22895987 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Soll D, Snyder DP, Tidwell C. In-office procedures: emerging trends and practical issues. OBG Manage 2007;19 suppl:1–12.
-
- Syed R, Levy J, Childers ME. Pain associated with hysteroscopic sterilization. JSLS 2007;11:63–5.
-
- Lopes P, Gibon E, Linet T, Philippe HJ. Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization with Essure intratubal devices: a case-control prospective with inert local anesthesia or without anesthesia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;138:199–203.
-
- Pasternak R. Risk assessment in ambulatory surgery: challenges and new trends. Can J Anesth 2004;51(suppl 1):R1–5.
-
- Palmer CB. Obstetrical anesthesia. Cal State J Med 1918;16:175–9.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials