Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention.

BACKGROUND: Cervical dilatation and uterine intervention can be performed under sedation, local or general anaesthesia for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. Many gynaecologists use paracervical local anaesthesia but its effectiveness is unclear. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness and safety of paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention, versus no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, sedation and systemic analgesia, and general anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We reran our search to August 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013), and reference lists of articles. The original search was performed in January 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or controlled clinical studies involving women who underwent cervical dilatation and uterine intervention for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. We included studies which compared paracervical anaesthesia with no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, systemic sedation and analgesia, or general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently evaluated the studies, extracted data, and checked and entered data into Review Manager. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes nine new studies, in total 26 studies with 28 comparisons and involving 2790 participants. No study of local paracervical versus general anaesthesia met our criteria. Ten studies compared local anaesthetic versus placebo. Paracervical local anaesthetic (PLA) reduced pain on cervical dilatation with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.37 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.58) and a relative risk (RR) of severe pain of 0.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). PLA also reduced abdominal pain during, but not after, uterine intervention (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19); there was no evidence of any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Comparisons against no treatment did not demonstrate any effect of PLA. Five studies compared paracervical block with uterosacral block, intracervical block, or intrauterine topical anaesthesia. Two of these studies showed no significant difference in pain during the procedure. Compared to intrauterine instillation, PLA slightly reduced severe pain (from 8.3 to 7.6 on a 10-point scale), which may be negligible. Six studies compared PLA with sedation. There were no statistically significant differences in pain during or after the procedure, postoperative analgesia requirement, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and the operator's perception of analgesia. We performed risk of bias assessment using six domains and found that more than half of the included studies had low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that no technique provided reliable pain control in the 26 included studies. Some studies reported that women experienced severe pain (mean scores of 7 to 9 out of 10) during uterine intervention, irrespective of the analgesic technique used. We concluded that the available evidence fails to show whether paracervical block is inferior, equivalent, or superior to alternative analgesic techniques in terms of efficacy and safety for women undergoing cervical dilatation and uterine interventions. We suggest that woman are likely to consider the rates and severity of pain during uterine interventions when performed awake to be unacceptable in the absence of neuraxial blockade, which are unaltered by paracervical block.

Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention.

BACKGROUND: Cervical dilatation and uterine intervention can be performed under sedation, local or general anaesthesia for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. Many gynaecologists use paracervical local anaesthesia (PLA) but its effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of paracervical anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention when compared with no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, systemic sedation and analgesia, or general anaesthesia (GA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006), EMBASE (1980 to January 2006) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or controlled clinical studies involving cervical dilatation and uterine intervention for obstetric and gynaecological conditions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently evaluated studies, extracted data, checked and entered data into Review Manager. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 1855 participants. No study of PLA versus GA met our criteria; eight studies compared PLA versus placebo. Injection of local anaesthetic was slightly less painful than injection of saline placebo, a reduction of 0.87 points (95% CI 0.14 to 1.60) on a 10-point pain scale. Compared to placebo, PLA reduced abdominal pain during uterine intervention equivalent to two or three points on a 10-point pain scale and reduced the risk of severe pain (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). There was no evidence that PLA reduced pain after the uterine intervention and little evidence for any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Pain reduction by PLA was not confirmed in four studies that compared PLA with no treatment. Three studies compared PLA with uterosacral block; intracervical block; and intrauterine topical anaesthesia. Two of these studies showed no significant difference in pain during the procedure. Compared to intrauterine instillation, PLA slightly reduced severe pain (from 8.3 to 7.6, on a 10-point pain scale), which may be negligible. This benefit appeared to be greater for women who required cervical dilatation. Two studies compared PLA with sedation. There were no statistically significant differences in pain during or after the procedure, postoperative analgesia requirement, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and the operator's perception of analgesia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No technique provided reliable pain control in the 17 included studies. Some studies reported that women experienced severe pain (mean scores of 7 to 9 out of 10) during uterine intervention, irrespective of the analgesic technique used. We concluded that the available evidence fails to show whether paracervical block is inferior, equivalent or superior to alternative analgesic techniques, in terms of efficacy and safety, for women undergoing uterine interventions.

The use of hypnosis to improve pain management during voluntary interruption of pregnancy: an open randomized preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: This report describes an open randomized study that aims to determine whether a brief hypnotic intervention during first-trimester surgical abortion reduces requests for pain medication. METHODS: Thirty women undergoing first-trimester surgical abortion at the family planning clinics of a large hospital in Quebec City were randomized into a control group that received standard care and a hypnosis group that received, in addition to standard care, an intervention of hypnosis, including analgesia suggestions 20 min before and throughout the surgical procedure. Patients in both groups were given the option to control their pain with nitrous oxide (N(2)O) sedation administered through a nose mask as often and for as long as they wanted during the procedure. N(2)O sedation as the primary outcome was assessed at each step of the procedure. The patient's self-reported anxiety and pain were also assessed during the procedure as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of patients in the hypnosis group requested N(2)O sedation during the procedure versus 87% in the control group (p<.01). No differences between the groups were found in reports of pain and anxiety during the procedure. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that hypnosis can be integrated into standard care and reduces the need for N(2)O in patients undergoing first-trimester surgical abortion. This reduction in N(2)O consumption did not lead to significant changes in pain or anxiety, and a larger sample size is required to assess the possible effects of hypnosis on those variables.

Assessing menstrual regulation performed by paramedics in rural Bangladesh.

PIP: Describes and evaluates the performance of menstrual regulation by Bagladeshi lady family planning visitors in a clinic in Matlab and in 4 subcenter clinics. The feasibility of using menstrual regulation to evacuate uterine contents up to 9 weeks since the last menstrual period is also analyzed. The complication rates of the procedures studied compare favorably with rates reported for menstrual regulation procedures performed by physicians. It is concluded that on the basis of the 212 procedures studied, lady family planning workers or other categories of paramedical staff can perform menstrual regulation if properly trained and if appropriate medical supervision and backup is provided. It was also shown that the procedure can be performed up to 9 weeks since last menstrual period with minimal added complications.^ieng