Anesthetics, local Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2015;37(3):105-109
DOI 10.1590/SO100-720320150005201
To determine whether paraspinal block reduces pain scores compared to placebo in women with chronic pelvic pain refractory to drug therapy.
Subjects with chronic pelvic pain due to benign conditions and refractory to drug therapy were invited to participate in a randomized, double blind, superiority trial at a tertiary reference center. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive paraspinal anesthetic block with 1% lidocaine without epinephrine or placebo (control). Lidocaine was injected along the spinal process of the painful segment in the supra- and interspinal ligaments using a 25G X 2" needle. Placebo consisted of introduction of the needle in the same segment without injecting any substance. The main outcome measured was the pain score based on a visual analog scale at T0 (baseline), T1 (within 15 min after the procedure) and T2 (one week after the procedure). Data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and the 95% confidence interval (95%CI).
Mean age was similar for both groups, i.e., 51.2 (paraspinal anesthetic block) and 51.8 years (control). A blind examiner measured the degree of pain according to the visual analog scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Based on the visual analog scale, the mean pain scores of the paraspinal anesthetic block group at T0, T1 and T2 were 5.50 (SD=2.92; 95%CI 3.84-7.15), 2.72 (SD=2.10; 95%CI 1.53-3.90), and 4.36 (SD=2.37; 95%CI 1.89-6.82), respectively. The difference between T0 and T1 was statistically significant, with p=0.03.
Paraspinal anesthetic block had a small effect on visual analog scale pain score immediately after the injections, but no sustained benefit after one week. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of paraspinal anesthetic block with different lidocaine doses for the treatment of visceral pain of other causes.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2015;37(3):105-109
DOI 10.1590/SO100-720320150005201
To determine whether paraspinal block reduces pain scores compared to placebo in women with chronic pelvic pain refractory to drug therapy.
Subjects with chronic pelvic pain due to benign conditions and refractory to drug therapy were invited to participate in a randomized, double blind, superiority trial at a tertiary reference center. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive paraspinal anesthetic block with 1% lidocaine without epinephrine or placebo (control). Lidocaine was injected along the spinal process of the painful segment in the supra- and interspinal ligaments using a 25G X 2" needle. Placebo consisted of introduction of the needle in the same segment without injecting any substance. The main outcome measured was the pain score based on a visual analog scale at T0 (baseline), T1 (within 15 min after the procedure) and T2 (one week after the procedure). Data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and the 95% confidence interval (95%CI).
Mean age was similar for both groups, i.e., 51.2 (paraspinal anesthetic block) and 51.8 years (control). A blind examiner measured the degree of pain according to the visual analog scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Based on the visual analog scale, the mean pain scores of the paraspinal anesthetic block group at T0, T1 and T2 were 5.50 (SD=2.92; 95%CI 3.84-7.15), 2.72 (SD=2.10; 95%CI 1.53-3.90), and 4.36 (SD=2.37; 95%CI 1.89-6.82), respectively. The difference between T0 and T1 was statistically significant, with p=0.03.
Paraspinal anesthetic block had a small effect on visual analog scale pain score immediately after the injections, but no sustained benefit after one week. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of paraspinal anesthetic block with different lidocaine doses for the treatment of visceral pain of other causes.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2009;31(10):485-491
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009001000003
PURPOSE: to compare maternal and perinatal results, after the use of continuous peridural versus combined rachidian and peridural analgesia in primiparous parturients. METHODS: randomized clinical trial with 128 primiparous pregnant women in labor, divided into two groups: peridural analgesia (CPA) with 65 women, and combined continuous rachidian and peridural analgesia (CRPA) with 63, all of them admitted in the pre-labor period at two maternities in Jundiai, in the state of São Paulo. The variables studied were: latency of analgesia onset, pain intensity, total time until complete dilation, Apgar index at the first and fifth minutes, labor duration, degree of motor blockade, adverse effects such as vomiting, pruritus, arterial hypotension and degree of maternal fulfillment. Inclusion criteria were: primiparous, physical condition ASA 1 and 2, an only foetus, cephalic presentation, term delivery, 3 to 6 cm cervical dilation, and analgesia required by the obstetritian. Women with morbidity, membrane rupture, fetal abnormality and use of opioids up to four hours before were excluded. The Mann-Whitney test was used for the statistical analysis of non-parametric continuous variables, and Fisher's exact and Pearson's χ2 tests, for the categoric variables. RESULTS: there was no difference between the groups concerning the length of cervical dilation, labor duration, maternal hemodynamic parameters, newborn vitality, analgesic complementation during labor and type of delivery. Analgesia onset was quicker in the CRPA group, and the CPA group presented less motor blockade. Differences concerning adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus and hypotension have not been observed, but hypotension was more frequent in the CPA group (6.3 versus 3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: both techniques have proved to be safe and efficient, but CRP has provided an earlier onset, with quicker pain relief. The lesser motor blockade in the CPA group has allowed the parturients more active movements in bed and more effective collaboration during the expulsion period. Most women were pleased with the analgesia they got. The doses of local anesthetics and opioids used in both analgesic techniques and the complementary doses, equal in both groups, neither had any significant adverse effect nor affected newborn vitality.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2009;31(10):485-491
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009001000003
PURPOSE: to compare maternal and perinatal results, after the use of continuous peridural versus combined rachidian and peridural analgesia in primiparous parturients. METHODS: randomized clinical trial with 128 primiparous pregnant women in labor, divided into two groups: peridural analgesia (CPA) with 65 women, and combined continuous rachidian and peridural analgesia (CRPA) with 63, all of them admitted in the pre-labor period at two maternities in Jundiai, in the state of São Paulo. The variables studied were: latency of analgesia onset, pain intensity, total time until complete dilation, Apgar index at the first and fifth minutes, labor duration, degree of motor blockade, adverse effects such as vomiting, pruritus, arterial hypotension and degree of maternal fulfillment. Inclusion criteria were: primiparous, physical condition ASA 1 and 2, an only foetus, cephalic presentation, term delivery, 3 to 6 cm cervical dilation, and analgesia required by the obstetritian. Women with morbidity, membrane rupture, fetal abnormality and use of opioids up to four hours before were excluded. The Mann-Whitney test was used for the statistical analysis of non-parametric continuous variables, and Fisher's exact and Pearson's χ2 tests, for the categoric variables. RESULTS: there was no difference between the groups concerning the length of cervical dilation, labor duration, maternal hemodynamic parameters, newborn vitality, analgesic complementation during labor and type of delivery. Analgesia onset was quicker in the CRPA group, and the CPA group presented less motor blockade. Differences concerning adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus and hypotension have not been observed, but hypotension was more frequent in the CPA group (6.3 versus 3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: both techniques have proved to be safe and efficient, but CRP has provided an earlier onset, with quicker pain relief. The lesser motor blockade in the CPA group has allowed the parturients more active movements in bed and more effective collaboration during the expulsion period. Most women were pleased with the analgesia they got. The doses of local anesthetics and opioids used in both analgesic techniques and the complementary doses, equal in both groups, neither had any significant adverse effect nor affected newborn vitality.
