Is paracervical block anesthesia for oocyte retrieval effective?
To quantitate pain relief associated with paracervical local anesthesia during transvaginal ultrasound-guided collection. The study was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and no treatment-controlled investigation. Pain scores for vaginal pain associated with entry into th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Fertility and sterility 1994-07, Vol.62 (1), p.133-136 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To quantitate pain relief associated with paracervical local anesthesia during transvaginal ultrasound-guided collection.
The study was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and no treatment-controlled investigation. Pain scores for vaginal pain associated with entry into the cul-de-sac and global assessment for the entire procedure were generated separately by patient and physician. Variables evaluated include duration of procedure, patient weight and age, total number of vaginal and ovarian “follicular” punctures, number of oocytes retrieved, and amount of IV medication.
A private IVF-ET program.
Women in an IVF-ET program who volunteered to join the study (n=101).
Local anesthesia as a paracervical block compared with placebo or no injection during transvaginal oocyte retrieval, with all patients receiving IV sedation.
Both vaginal and global pain scores, whether patient or physician assessed were lower for paracervical block than placebo. Agreements between physician and patient assessments of pain scores were close. Duration of the procedure was correlated with pain score. In general, a placebo effect on pain perception compared with no injection was not seen.
Paracervical local anesthesia compared with placebo injection was associated with lower pain scores for both vaginal puncture and global assessment of the oocyte retrieval process but was not significantly better than no injection for global evaluation. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0015-0282 1556-5653 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)56828-9 |