Lidocaine 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. 2007;29(4):181-185
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032007000400003
PURPOSE: to determine the efficacy of 10% lidocaine spray applied to the cervix before the procedure of diagnostic hysteroscopy, in order to reduce the painful process and the discomfort caused by the exam. METHODS: a total of 261 consecutive patients participated in the study, which was conducted from March 2004 to March 2005. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group receiving topical lidocaine spray (lidocaine group - LdG) and the other, receiving no medication before the procedure (control group - CG). In the LdG patients, thirty milligrams of 10% lidocaine spray were applied to the surface of the cervix five minutes before hysteroscopy started. Immediately, after the end of the procedure, the patients from both groups were asked to respond to a questionnaire about pain and to quantify the pain, in centimeters, using a 10-cm non-graduated visual analog scale. The unpaired t test, the Mann-Whitney test and the chi2 test were used for statistical analyses, considering p significant if lower than 0.05. RESULTS: there was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding age, parity or percentage of patients in menacme or menopause, or regarding the indications for the procedure and the hysteroscopic findings. A biopsy was necessary in 57 of the 132 LdG patients and in 48 of the 129 CG patients (p=0.96). The mean pain score was 4.3±2.9 in LdG and 3.9±2.5 in CG (p=0.2). A difference in the mean pain score was observed only among patients in menacme and menopause receiving or not the lidocaine spray, with p=0.01 and p=0.04 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: the use of lidocaine spray during diagnostic hysteroscopy does not minimize the discomfort and pain of the patients and therefore should not be applied.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2007;29(4):181-185
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032007000400003
PURPOSE: to determine the efficacy of 10% lidocaine spray applied to the cervix before the procedure of diagnostic hysteroscopy, in order to reduce the painful process and the discomfort caused by the exam. METHODS: a total of 261 consecutive patients participated in the study, which was conducted from March 2004 to March 2005. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group receiving topical lidocaine spray (lidocaine group - LdG) and the other, receiving no medication before the procedure (control group - CG). In the LdG patients, thirty milligrams of 10% lidocaine spray were applied to the surface of the cervix five minutes before hysteroscopy started. Immediately, after the end of the procedure, the patients from both groups were asked to respond to a questionnaire about pain and to quantify the pain, in centimeters, using a 10-cm non-graduated visual analog scale. The unpaired t test, the Mann-Whitney test and the chi2 test were used for statistical analyses, considering p significant if lower than 0.05. RESULTS: there was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding age, parity or percentage of patients in menacme or menopause, or regarding the indications for the procedure and the hysteroscopic findings. A biopsy was necessary in 57 of the 132 LdG patients and in 48 of the 129 CG patients (p=0.96). The mean pain score was 4.3±2.9 in LdG and 3.9±2.5 in CG (p=0.2). A difference in the mean pain score was observed only among patients in menacme and menopause receiving or not the lidocaine spray, with p=0.01 and p=0.04 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: the use of lidocaine spray during diagnostic hysteroscopy does not minimize the discomfort and pain of the patients and therefore should not be applied.
