优化子宫内膜活检镇痛:一项前瞻性随机对比研究。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Enes Serhat Coskun, Ali Selcuk Yeniocak, Havva Betul Bacak, Suleyman Salman
{"title":"优化子宫内膜活检镇痛:一项前瞻性随机对比研究。","authors":"Enes Serhat Coskun, Ali Selcuk Yeniocak, Havva Betul Bacak, Suleyman Salman","doi":"10.1111/jog.16148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This prospective, randomized, observational study aimed to compare the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine, oral dexketoprofen, cervical lidocaine spray, and paracervical block with prilocaine for pain management during outpatient endometrial biopsy (EMB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred ninety-seven women aged 18-75 undergoing EMB were randomly assigned to one of four groups: intrauterine lidocaine (n = 49), oral dexketoprofen (n = 48), cervical lidocaine spray (n = 50), or paracervical block with prilocaine (n = 50). Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) immediately post-procedure and at 30 min, with additional analgesia needs recorded at 60 min. Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square tests, and post hoc analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intrauterine lidocaine group had the lowest pain scores, while oral dexketoprofen had the highest (p < 0.001). Intrauterine lidocaine and paracervical block scores were significantly lower than those in the lidocaine spray and dexketoprofen groups (p < 0.001). Additional analgesia was needed in 30% of the lidocaine spray group, with none required in other groups. Severe pain (VAS ≥5.8) was more frequent in the dexketoprofen group compared to others (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intrauterine lidocaine and paracervical block are more effective than lidocaine spray and oral dexketoprofen in reducing procedural pain during EMB, highlighting the importance of appropriate analgesic selection to enhance patient comfort in office-based gynecological procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":16593,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing analgesia for endometrial biopsy: A prospective, randomized comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Enes Serhat Coskun, Ali Selcuk Yeniocak, Havva Betul Bacak, Suleyman Salman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jog.16148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This prospective, randomized, observational study aimed to compare the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine, oral dexketoprofen, cervical lidocaine spray, and paracervical block with prilocaine for pain management during outpatient endometrial biopsy (EMB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred ninety-seven women aged 18-75 undergoing EMB were randomly assigned to one of four groups: intrauterine lidocaine (n = 49), oral dexketoprofen (n = 48), cervical lidocaine spray (n = 50), or paracervical block with prilocaine (n = 50). Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) immediately post-procedure and at 30 min, with additional analgesia needs recorded at 60 min. Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square tests, and post hoc analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intrauterine lidocaine group had the lowest pain scores, while oral dexketoprofen had the highest (p < 0.001). Intrauterine lidocaine and paracervical block scores were significantly lower than those in the lidocaine spray and dexketoprofen groups (p < 0.001). Additional analgesia was needed in 30% of the lidocaine spray group, with none required in other groups. Severe pain (VAS ≥5.8) was more frequent in the dexketoprofen group compared to others (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intrauterine lidocaine and paracervical block are more effective than lidocaine spray and oral dexketoprofen in reducing procedural pain during EMB, highlighting the importance of appropriate analgesic selection to enhance patient comfort in office-based gynecological procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.16148\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.16148","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这项前瞻性、随机、观察性研究旨在比较宫腔内利多卡因、口服右酮洛芬、宫颈利多卡因喷雾剂和宫颈旁阻滞与普鲁卡因在门诊子宫内膜活检(EMB)过程中的止痛效果:接受EMB检查的177名18-75岁女性被随机分配到四组中的一组:宫腔内利多卡因组(49人)、口服右酮洛芬组(48人)、宫颈利多卡因喷剂组(50人)或宫颈旁普鲁卡因阻滞组(50人)。术后即刻和 30 分钟内的疼痛强度用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行评估,60 分钟时记录额外的镇痛需求。统计分析包括 Kruskal-Wallis、卡方检验和事后分析:结果:宫腔内利多卡因组的疼痛评分最低,而口服右酮洛芬组的疼痛评分最高(p 结论:宫腔内利多卡因组和口服右酮洛芬组的疼痛评分都最低:与利多卡因喷雾剂和口服右酮洛芬相比,宫腔内利多卡因和宫颈旁阻滞剂能更有效地减轻 EMB 过程中的疼痛,这凸显了在诊室妇科手术中选择适当镇痛剂以提高患者舒适度的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimizing analgesia for endometrial biopsy: A prospective, randomized comparative study.

Aim: This prospective, randomized, observational study aimed to compare the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine, oral dexketoprofen, cervical lidocaine spray, and paracervical block with prilocaine for pain management during outpatient endometrial biopsy (EMB).

Methods: One hundred ninety-seven women aged 18-75 undergoing EMB were randomly assigned to one of four groups: intrauterine lidocaine (n = 49), oral dexketoprofen (n = 48), cervical lidocaine spray (n = 50), or paracervical block with prilocaine (n = 50). Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) immediately post-procedure and at 30 min, with additional analgesia needs recorded at 60 min. Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square tests, and post hoc analysis.

Results: The intrauterine lidocaine group had the lowest pain scores, while oral dexketoprofen had the highest (p < 0.001). Intrauterine lidocaine and paracervical block scores were significantly lower than those in the lidocaine spray and dexketoprofen groups (p < 0.001). Additional analgesia was needed in 30% of the lidocaine spray group, with none required in other groups. Severe pain (VAS ≥5.8) was more frequent in the dexketoprofen group compared to others (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Intrauterine lidocaine and paracervical block are more effective than lidocaine spray and oral dexketoprofen in reducing procedural pain during EMB, highlighting the importance of appropriate analgesic selection to enhance patient comfort in office-based gynecological procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
376
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research is the official Journal of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and aims to provide a medium for the publication of articles in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal publishes original research articles, case reports, review articles and letters to the editor. The Journal will give publication priority to original research articles over case reports. Accepted papers become the exclusive licence of the Journal. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two referees and/or Associate Editors expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
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