Dataset Information

Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block versus conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following first-trimester incomplete miscarriages: A randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block and conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following a first-trimester miscarriage.

Methods

This is an open-label, randomised control trial comparing pain relief by paracervical block versus conscious sedation during manual vacuum aspiration of first-trimester incomplete miscarriages. One-hundred and sixty-two women were equally randomised into two groups. Group A (paracervical group) received a paracervical block of 4 ml of lidocaine each at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. Group B (conscious sedation group) received intravenous 30 mg pentazocine and 10 mg diazepam. Data obtained were presented using a frequency table, student t-test, chi-square and Mann-Whitney test and bar chart. A P-value of ⩽0.05 was taken to be statistically significant.

Results

The mean pain score was lower in the paracervical block group compared to the conscious sedation group (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction between the groups (P ⩾ 0.05). Conscious sedation had more negative side effects compared to paracervical block which was significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Paracervical block has better pain control compared with conscious sedation and has a good side effect profile.

Trial registration

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (registered trial no. PACTR202108841661192).

Synopsis

Paracervical block for manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) during first-trimester miscarriage is associated with less pain among women compared with conscious sedation.

SUBMITTER: Nweke NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9326839 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block versus conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following first-trimester incomplete miscarriages: A randomised controlled trial.

Nweke Nnenna A NA Anikwe Chidebe Christian CC Ewah Richard L RL Umeononihu Osita S OS Eze Justus N JN

SAGE open medicine 20220724

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block and conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following a first-trimester miscarriage.<h4>Methods</h4>This is an open-label, randomised control trial comparing pain relief by paracervical block versus conscious sedation during manual vacuum aspiration of first-trimester incomplete miscarriages. One-hundred and sixty-two women were equally randomised into two groups. Group A (paracervical group) ...[more]

PMID: 35910816

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether a 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain during intrauterine device (IUD) placement.MethodsIn a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial, women were assigned to receive either a 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block or no block before IUD placement. The primary outcome was pain with IUD placement measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Our sample size had 80% power (α=0.05) to detect a 20-mm difference in visual analog scale scores with a SD of 28 mm. Secondary outcomes included pain with speculum placement, paracervical block administration, tenaculum placement, 5 minutes postprocedure, and overall pain perception.ResultsFrom October 7, 2014, through October 26, 2017, 64 women were enrolled and analyzed (33 in the paracervical block arm, 31 in the no-block arm). There were no differences in baseline demographics between the groups. Women who received the paracervical block reported less pain with IUD placement compared with women who received no block (median visual analog scale score of 33 mm vs 54 mm, P=.002). Pain was significantly less in the intervention group for uterine sounding (30 mm vs 47 mm, P=.005), 5 minutes after placement (12 mm vs 27 mm, P=.005), and overall pain perception (30 mm vs 51 mm, P=.015). Participants who received the paracervical block experienced more pain with block administration compared with placebo (30 mm vs 8 mm, P=.003). There was no perceived pain difference for speculum insertion (10 mm vs 6 mm, P=.447) or tenaculum placement (15 mm vs 10 mm, P=.268).ConclusionA 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain with IUD placement (primary outcome), uterine sounding (secondary outcome), and 5 minutes after placement (secondary outcome). Although paracervical block administration can be painful, perception of pain for overall IUD placement procedure is lower compared with no block.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02219308.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the effect of spinal anesthesia (SPA), paracervical block (PB), and general anesthesia (GA), on pain, the frequency of nausea and vomiting and analgesic requirements in diagnostic hysteroscopy.MethodsThis single-center, non-randomized, parallel-group, clinical trial was conducted on 66 diagnostic hysteroscopy candidates who were selected by convenience sampling at Fatemieh Hospital, in Hamadan, Iran, in 2021.ResultsThe mean pain score during recovery and the need for analgesic injections was found to be significantly higher in the GA group compared to that in the SPA group (pain: 3.77 ± 2.25 vs. 0.10 ± 0.30, P < 0.001), (analgesic: 50 vs. 0%, P < 0.001) and PB group (pain: 3.77 ± 2.25 vs. 0.90 ± 1.37, P < 0.001), (analgesic 50 vs. 10%, P < 0.001), respectively. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the mean pain score between SPA and PB groups (0.10 ± 0.30 vs. 0.90 ± 1.3, P = 0.661). In addition, there were no significant differences between groups on nausea/vomiting after operation (P = 0.382). In adjusted regression analysis (adjusting for age, weight, gravid, abortion, and cause of hysteroscopy), the odds ratio (OR) of pain score during recovery was increased in PB (OR: 4.471, 95% CI: 1.527-6.156, P = 0.018) and GA (OR: 8.406, 95% CI: 2.421-9.195, P = 0.001) groups compared with the SPA group. However, in adjusting based on times of surgery duration, anesthesia duration, recovery and return of motor function, the ORs of pain score between groups was not statistically significant.ConclusionDespite reduced pain during recovery in patients receiving SPA, duration of anesthesia, recovery period, and return of motor function were significantly prolonged compared to those receiving PB or GA. It seems that PB with less recovery time and faster return of motor function than SPA and also mild pain during recovery compared to GA can be a good option for hysteroscopy.Clinical trial registrationhttp://www.irct.ir, identifier IRCT20120915010841N26.

Dataset Information

Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block versus conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following first-trimester incomplete miscarriages: A randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Synopsis

Publications

Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block versus conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following first-trimester incomplete miscarriages: A randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets