Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Jan;115(1):26-34.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c51ace.

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

Scott Chudnoff  1 , Mark Einstein, Mark Levie
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Scott Chudnoff et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Soll D, Snyder DP, Tidwell C. In-office procedures: emerging trends and practical issues. OBG Manage 2007;19 suppl:1–12.
    1. Syed R, Levy J, Childers ME. Pain associated with hysteroscopic sterilization. JSLS 2007;11:63–5.
    1. 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.
    1. Pasternak R. Risk assessment in ambulatory surgery: challenges and new trends. Can J Anesth 2004;51(suppl 1):R1–5.
    1. Palmer CB. Obstetrical anesthesia. Cal State J Med 1918;16:175–9.

Publication types

Associated data