Buffered lidocaine for paracervical blocks in first-trimester abortions: a randomized controlled trial

Q2 Medicine
Jennifer Chin, Bliss Kaneshiro, Jennifer Elia, Shandhini Raidoo, Michael Savala, Reni Soon
{"title":"Buffered lidocaine for paracervical blocks in first-trimester abortions: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"Jennifer Chin,&nbsp;Bliss Kaneshiro,&nbsp;Jennifer Elia,&nbsp;Shandhini Raidoo,&nbsp;Michael Savala,&nbsp;Reni Soon","doi":"10.1016/j.conx.2020.100044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The objective was to evaluate if buffered lidocaine decreases injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine for paracervical blocks during first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among women undergoing outpatient uterine aspiration of a first-trimester pregnancy or an early pregnancy loss. Subjects received a paracervical block with either lidocaine 1% 20 mL or lidocaine 1% 18 mL plus sodium bicarbonate 8.4% 2 mL. The primary outcome was pain from injection of the paracervical block measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included pain after cervical dilation, uterine aspiration and overall satisfaction with pain control. Scores were compared using the Mann–Whitney <em>U</em> test. We aimed to detect a 15-mm difference in pain from injection of the paracervical block.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From May 2017 to October 2018, 48 women received plain lidocaine and 50 women received buffered lidocaine. Groups were similar in demographics. We found no clinically or statistically meaningful difference in pain when evaluating median VAS scores for paracervical block injection between the buffered and plain lidocaine [30.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 15.3–64.5); 44.5 (IQR 18.3–65), respectively, p = .32]. We found no difference in secondary outcomes between buffered and plain lidocaine.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Buffered lidocaine for paracervical blocks in first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions does not decrease injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine.</p></div><div><h3>Implications statement</h3><p>Buffering the paracervical block in first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions does not decrease injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine, nor does it increase patient satisfaction. Eliminating sodium bicarbonate allows for a more cost-effective and readily available solution for paracervical blocks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10655,"journal":{"name":"Contraception: X","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100044"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.conx.2020.100044","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151620300277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective

The objective was to evaluate if buffered lidocaine decreases injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine for paracervical blocks during first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions.

Study design

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among women undergoing outpatient uterine aspiration of a first-trimester pregnancy or an early pregnancy loss. Subjects received a paracervical block with either lidocaine 1% 20 mL or lidocaine 1% 18 mL plus sodium bicarbonate 8.4% 2 mL. The primary outcome was pain from injection of the paracervical block measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included pain after cervical dilation, uterine aspiration and overall satisfaction with pain control. Scores were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. We aimed to detect a 15-mm difference in pain from injection of the paracervical block.

Results

From May 2017 to October 2018, 48 women received plain lidocaine and 50 women received buffered lidocaine. Groups were similar in demographics. We found no clinically or statistically meaningful difference in pain when evaluating median VAS scores for paracervical block injection between the buffered and plain lidocaine [30.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 15.3–64.5); 44.5 (IQR 18.3–65), respectively, p = .32]. We found no difference in secondary outcomes between buffered and plain lidocaine.

Conclusion

Buffered lidocaine for paracervical blocks in first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions does not decrease injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine.

Implications statement

Buffering the paracervical block in first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions does not decrease injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine, nor does it increase patient satisfaction. Eliminating sodium bicarbonate allows for a more cost-effective and readily available solution for paracervical blocks.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

缓冲利多卡因用于早期妊娠流产的宫颈旁阻滞:一项随机对照试验
目的:评价缓冲利多卡因与普通利多卡因相比,是否能减少妊娠早期门诊手术流产时宫颈旁阻滞的注射疼痛。研究设计:我们进行了一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验,研究对象为接受门诊子宫抽吸的早期妊娠或早期妊娠流产的妇女。受试者接受1%利多卡因20 mL或1%利多卡因18 mL加碳酸氢钠8.4% 2 mL的颈旁阻滞。主要结局是通过100毫米视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量注射颈旁阻滞引起的疼痛。次要结局包括宫颈扩张后疼痛、子宫抽吸和疼痛控制的总体满意度。使用Mann-Whitney U测试比较得分。我们的目的是检测注射颈旁阻滞后疼痛的15毫米差异。结果2017年5月至2018年10月,48名女性接受普通利多卡因治疗,50名女性接受缓冲利多卡因治疗。各组在人口统计学上相似。在评估缓冲利多卡因和普通利多卡因宫颈旁阻滞注射的VAS评分中位数时,我们发现在疼痛方面没有临床或统计学意义的差异[30.0(四分位间距(IQR) 15.3-64.5);44.5 (IQR 18.3-65), p = .32]。我们发现缓冲利多卡因和普通利多卡因的次要结局没有差异。结论与普通利多卡因相比,缓冲利多卡因用于早期妊娠门诊手术流产的宫颈旁阻滞不能减轻注射疼痛。结论:与普通利多卡因相比,缓冲早期妊娠门诊手术流产的宫颈旁阻滞不能减少注射疼痛,也不能提高患者满意度。消除碳酸氢钠可以为宫颈旁阻滞提供更具成本效益和更容易获得的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contraception: X
Contraception: X Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信