Comparison between lidocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA) and mepivacaine infiltration for pain relief during perineal repair after childbirth: a randomized trial

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of topically applied lidocaine-prilocaine (EMLA) cream with local anesthetic infiltration in the reduction of pain during perineal suturing after childbirth. Study Design Sixty-one women with either an episiotomy or a perineal lace...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2009-08, Vol.201 (2), p.186.e1-186.e5
Hauptverfasser: Franchi, Massimo, MD, Cromi, Antonella, PhD, Scarperi, Stefano, MD, Gaudino, Francesca, RM, Siesto, Gabriele, MD, Ghezzi, Fabio, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of topically applied lidocaine-prilocaine (EMLA) cream with local anesthetic infiltration in the reduction of pain during perineal suturing after childbirth. Study Design Sixty-one women with either an episiotomy or a perineal laceration after vaginal delivery were assigned randomly to receive either the application of EMLA cream (n = 31) or infiltration with mepivacaine (n = 30) before perineal suturing. Primary outcome was pain during perineal repair. Results Women in the EMLA group had lower pain scores than those in the mepivacaine group (1.7 ± 2.4 vs 3.9 ± 2.4; P = .0002). The proportion of women who needed additional anesthesia was similar in the 2 groups (3/30 vs 5/31; P = .71). A significantly higher proportion of women expressed satisfaction with anesthesia method in the EMLA group, compared with the mepivacaine group (83.8% vs 53.3%; P = .01) Conclusion EMLA cream appears to be an effective and satisfactory alternative to local anesthetic infiltration for the relief of pain during perineal repair.
ISSN:0002-9378
1097-6868
DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.023