Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention

Low-Dose Ketamine for Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Randomised, Double-Blind Study

Objective

Outpatient hysteroscopy is often accompanied by pain and discomfort along with frequent occurrence of bradycardia and hypotension. This study aimed to observe if intravenous low-dose ketamine reduces the pain scores along with lowering the incidence of bradycardia and hypotension during hysteroscopy.

Methods

This prospective, randomised, double-blind trial was conducted in operating rooms in a tertiary care hospital. In this study, we enrolled 72 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to II undergoing hysteroscopy. We randomised patients into two groups, and both groups received paracervical block. The control group received intravenous pentazocine and promethazine along with saline infusion. The ketamine group received ketamine infusion (0.75 mg kg⁻¹ bolus followed by infusion at the rate of 10 mcg kg⁻¹ min⁻¹). We analysed visual analogue scale (VAS), rescue analgesic consumption, hemodynamic parameters, lowest recorded heart rate, blood pressure, level of sedation, patient’s comfort, surgeon’s satisfaction and nursing staff’s satisfaction.

Results

Analysis of the data revealed that the pain scores were similar in both the groups (p=0.493, p<0.001). Rescue analgesic was required by 47% patients in control group, compared to only 5.6% patients in ketamine group. Episodes of bradycardia and hypotension were more pronounced in the control group than in the ketamine group [77.4±10.9 vs. 78.4±5.5; 67.6±8 vs. 70.1±6 respectively] (p<0.001). Patient comfort and surgeon’s satisfaction were higher in the ketamine group, but nursing satisfaction was higher in the control group. Disorientation was present in 75% patients in the ketamine group as compared to none in the control group.

Conclusion

We concluded that low-dose ketamine in day-care hysteroscopy is an effective and safe agent.

Essential Elements of Multimodal Analgesia in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Guidelines

Perioperative multimodal analgesia uses combinations of analgesic medications that act on different sites and pathways in an additive or synergistic manner to achieve pain relief with minimal or no opiate consumption. Although all medications have side effects, opiates have particularly concerning, multisystemic, long-term, and short-term side effects, which increase morbidity and prolong admissions. Enhanced recovery is a systematic process addressing each aspect affecting recovery. This article outlines the evidence base forming the current multimodal analgesia recommendations made by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society (ERAS). We describe current evidence and important future directions for effective perioperative multimodal analgesia in enhanced recovery pathways.

Comparison of paracetamol and fentanyl for pain relief during and after suction termination

Objectives:

To compare the combination of paracetamol (20 mg/kg) and propofol to fentanyl (1 µg/kg) and propofol in terms of providing adequate analgesia and a comparable recovery profile in suction termination procedures.

Methods:

This is a prospective, randomized clinical study in which we obtained informed consents from 146 women (fentanyl group: 76 [52.1%], paracetamol group: 70 [47.9%]) who were scheduled for suction curettage at the Istanbul Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey in January 2015. Patients were randomly allocated into a fentanyl group or a paracetamol group. Visual analogue scores, modified Aldrete scores, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded during and after the surgical procedure. A record was also maintained of any adverse events.

Results:

When the modified Aldrete scores at 60 minutes, systolic pressures at 0 minutes, oxygen saturation at 10, 15, 20 minutes, diastolic blood pressure at 10, 15, 20 minutes, heart rates, and visual analogue scores were compared, there was no significant difference between groups (p>0.05). In the fentanyl group, systolic blood pressures at 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes and diastolic blood pressure at 5 minutes and oxygen saturation at 5 minutes were significantly lower (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

Our study demonstrates that the analgesic properties and recovery profiles of intravenous paracetamol is as effective as fentanyl when used in suction termination procedures. Further larger studies are still required.

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.

Intrauterine anesthesia for gynecologic procedures: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of intrauterine local anesthesia in reducing pain associated with outpatient gynecologic procedures.

DATA SOURCES

We searched online databases PubMed or MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov and hand-searched reference lists from reviews evaluating pain-control methods for gynecologic office procedures. We identified randomized controlled trials using intrauterine local anesthetic in gynecologic procedures.

METHODS

Titles and abstracts were screened for 1,236 articles. We identified 45 potential articles for inclusion. We excluded 22 of these studies because: 1) they were not randomized controlled trials; 2) they did not describe a quantifiable dose of medication used in the study; 3) they did not investigate an intrauterine anesthetic; 4) they did not study a potentially awake, outpatient procedure; and 5) they did not clearly report results or represented duplicate publication. Twenty-three articles were ultimately included for review.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two authors independently reviewed full search results and assessed eligibility for inclusion and independently abstracted data from all articles that met criteria for inclusion. Disagreements regarding eligibility or abstraction data were adjudicated by a third independent person. Our primary end point was the reported effect of intrauterine local anesthesia on patient-reported pain scores. As a result of heterogeneity in study methods, outcome measures, and reporting of outcomes, results could not be combined in a meta-analysis. Good evidence supports use of intrauterine anesthesia in endometrial biopsy and curettage, because five good-quality studies reported reduced pain scores, whereas only one good-quality study reported negative results. We found moderate evidence to support intrauterine anesthesia in hysteroscopy, because one good-quality study and two fair or poor quality studies reported reduced pain scores, whereas two good-quality studies had negative results. Good evidence suggests that intrauterine anesthesia is not effective in hysterosalpingography; three good-quality studies reported that pain scores were not reduced, and no good quality studies showed a beneficial effect in that procedure. Evidence was insufficient concerning first-trimester abortion, saline-infusion ultrasonogram, tubal sterilization, and intrauterine device insertion.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine local anesthesia can reduce pain in several gynecologic procedures including endometrial biopsy, curettage, and hysteroscopy and may be effective in other procedures as well.

Pain management for tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy involves inserting a foreign body in both fallopian tubes. Over a three-month period, the tubal lumen is occluded by tissue growth stimulated by the insert. Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy has advantages over laparoscopy or mini-laparotomy, including the avoidance of abdominal incisions and the convenience of performing the procedure in an office-based setting. Pain, an important determinant of procedure acceptability, can be a concern when tubal sterilization is performed in the office.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions to decrease pain during tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

From January to March 2011, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL for relevant trials. We searched for current trials via Clinicaltrials.gov. We also examined the reference lists of pertinent articles and wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that evaluated pain management at the time of sterilization by hysteroscopy. The intervention could be compared to another intervention or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initial data were extracted by one review author. A second review author verified all extracted data. Whenever possible, the analysis was conducted with all women randomized and in the original assigned groups. Data were analyzed using RevMan software. Pain was measured using either a 10-cm or 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). When pain was measured at multiple points during the procedure, the overall pain score was considered the primary treatment effect. If this was not measured, a summation of all pain scores for the procedure was considered to be the primary treatment effect. For continuous variables, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval was computed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 167. Using a 10-cm VAS to measure pain, no significant difference emerged in overall pain for the entire procedure between women who received a paracervical block with lidocaine versus normal saline (mean difference -0.77; 95% CI -2.67 to 1.13). No significant difference in pain score was noted at the time of injection of study solution to the anterior lip of the cervix (mean difference -0.6; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.1), placement of the device in the tubal ostia (mean difference -0.60; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.7), and postprocedure pain (mean difference 0.2; 95% CI -0.8 to 1.2). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8 minutes) and successful bilateral placement (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.19 to 5.28) was not significantly different between groups. During certain portions of the procedure, such as placement of the tenaculum (mean difference -2.03; 95% CI -2.88 to -1.18), administration of the paracervical block (mean difference -1.92; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.00), and passage of the hysteroscope through the external (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.30 to -1.32) and internal os (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.39 to -1.23), use of paracervical block with lidocaine resulted in lower pain scores.Using a 600-point scale calculated by adding 100-point VAS scores from six different portions of the procedure, no significant difference emerged in overall pain between women who received intravenous conscious sedation versus oral analgesia (mean difference -23.00; CI -62.02 to 16.02). Using a 100-point VAS, no significant difference emerged at the time of speculum insertion (mean difference 4.0; 95% CI -4.0 to 12.0), cervical injection of lidocaine (mean difference -1.8; 95% CI -10.0 to 6.4), insertion of the hysteroscope (mean difference -8.7; 95% CI -19.7 to 2.3), placement of the first device (mean difference -4.4; 95% CI -15.8 to 7.0), and removal of the hysteroscope (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI -3.9 to 5.7). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.0 to 1.6 minutes) and time in the recovery area (mean difference 3.6 minutes; 95% CI -11.3 to 18.5 minutes) was not different between groups. However, women who received intravenous conscious sedation had lower pain scores at the time of insertion of the second tubal device compared to women who received oral analgesia (mean difference -12.60; CI -23.98 to -1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available literature is insufficient to determine the appropriate analgesia or anesthesia for sterilization by hysteroscopy. Compared to paracervical block with normal saline, paracervical block with lidocaine reduced pain during some portions of the procedure. Intravenous sedation resulted in lower pain scores during insertion of the second tubal device. However, neither paracervical block with lidocaine nor conscious sedation significantly reduced overall pain scores for sterilization by hysteroscopy.

Anaesthesia for evacuation of incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

An incomplete miscarriage occurs when all the products of conception are not expelled through the cervix. Curettage or vacuum aspiration have been used to remove retained tissues. The anaesthetic techniques used to facilitate this procedure have not been systematically evaluated in order to determine which provide better outcomes to the patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of general anaesthesia, sedation or analgesia, regional or paracervical block anaesthetic techniques, or differing regimens of these, for surgical evacuation of incomplete miscarriage.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 January 2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), PubMed (1966 to 23 January 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 23 January 2012), CINAHL (1982 to 23 January 2012), LILACS (1982 to 23 January 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs comparing the use of any anaesthetic technique (defined by authors as general anaesthesia, sedation/analgesia, regional or paracervical local block (PCB) procedures) to perform surgical evacuation of an incomplete miscarriage. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and studies that were only available as abstracts.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Data were independently extracted and checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials involving 800 women. The comparisons revealed a very high clinical heterogeneity. As a result of the heterogeneity in the randomisation unit, we did not combine trials but reported the individual trial results in the 'Data and analysis' section and in the text. Half of trials have unclear or high risk of bias in several domains.We did not find any trial reporting data about maternal mortality. In terms of postoperative pain, PCB does not improve the control of postoperative pain when it is compared against sedation/analgesia or versus no anaesthesia/no analgesia. In the comparison of PCB with lidocaine versus PCB with saline solution, significant differences favouring the group with lidocaine were found in one trial (moderate or severe postoperative pain) (risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.59).When opioids were used, postoperative nausea and vomiting was more frequent in two trials comparing those versus PCB. In terms of requirement of blood transfusion, two trials showed conflicting results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Particular considerations that influence the choice of anaesthesia for this procedure such as availability, effectiveness, safety, side effects, practitioner's choice, costs and woman's preferences of each technique should continue to be used until more evidence supporting the use of one technique or another.

Role of regional anesthesia in the ambulatory environment

The use of local anesthetics in ambulatory surgery offers multiple benefits in line with the goals of modern-day outpatient surgery. A variety of regional techniques can be used for a wide spectrum of procedures; all are shown to reduce postprocedural pain; reduce the short-term need for opiate medications; reduce adverse effects, such as nausea and vomiting; and reduce the time to dismissal compared with patients who do not receive regional techniques. Growth in ambulatory procedures will likely continue to rise with future advances in surgical techniques, changes in reimbursement, and the evolution of clinical pathways that include superior, sustained postoperative analgesia. Anticipating these changes in practice, the role of, and demand for, regional anesthesia in outpatient surgery will continue to grow.

Local anaesthesia for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types of local anaesthetic for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Women undergoing diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy as outpatients-that is, without general anaesthesia. Study selection criteria Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and reference lists of relevant studies. Two reviewers independently selected trials. Data were abstracted on quality, characteristics, and results.

RESULTS

There were 20 trials (2851 participants). Data from 15 of these were meta-analysed in subgroups defined by type of intervention and study quality. Intracervical (standardised mean difference -0.36, 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.10, I(2)=0%) and paracervical (-1.28, -2.22 to -0.35, I(2)=97%) injections of local anaesthetic significantly reduced the pain in women undergoing hysteroscopy as outpatients, whereas transcervical (-0.11, -0.31 to 0.10, I(2)=27%) and topical application (-0.32, -0.97 to 0.33, I(2)= 90%) did not. Meta-regression showed that paracervical injection was superior to the other anaesthetic methods (P=0.04), a finding that was supported by the high quality subgroup of studies. Use of local anaesthetic did not have a significant effect on the incidence of vasovagal episodes (P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Paracervical local anaesthetic injection is the best method of pain control for women undergoing hysteroscopy as outpatients.