Global–local anaesthesia: combining paracervical block with intramyometrial prilocaine in the fundus significantly reduces patients' perception of pain during radio-frequency endometrial ablation (Novasure®) in an office setting

Design of a syringe extension device (Chloe SED®) for low-resource settings in sub-Saharan Africa: a circular economy approach

Underfunded healthcare infrastructures in low-resource settings in sub-Saharan Africa have resulted in a lack of medical devices crucial to provide healthcare for all. A representative example of this scenario is medical devices to administer paracervical blocks during gynaecological procedures. Devices needed for this procedure are usually unavailable or expensive. Without these devices, providing paracervical blocks for women in need is impossible resulting in compromising the quality of care for women requiring gynaecological procedures such as loop electrosurgical excision, treatment of miscarriage, or incomplete abortion. In that perspective, interventions that can be integrated into the healthcare system in low-resource settings to provide women needing paracervical blocks remain urgent. Based on a context-specific approach while leveraging circular economy design principles, this research catalogues the development of a new medical device called Chloe SED® that can be used to support the provision of paracervical blocks. Chloe SED®, priced at US$ 1.5 per device when produced in polypropylene, US$ 10 in polyetheretherketone, and US$ 15 in aluminium, is attached to any 10-cc syringe in low-resource settings to provide paracervical blocks. The device is designed for durability, repairability, maintainability, upgradeability, and recyclability to address environmental sustainability issues in the healthcare domain. Achieving the design of Chloe SED® from a context-specific and circular economy approach revealed correlations between the material choice to manufacture the device, the device's initial cost, product durability and reuse cycle, reprocessing method and cost, and environmental impact. These correlations can be seen as interconnected conflicting or divergent trade-offs that need to be continually assessed to deliver a medical device that provides healthcare for all with limited environmental impact. The study findings are intended to be seen as efforts to make available medical devices to support women's access to reproductive health services.

Pain management for in-office hysteroscopy. A practical decalogue for the operator

Hysteroscopy is known to be the gold standard for evaluation of intrauterine pathologies, pre-menopausal and post-menopausal abnormal uterine bleeding and, in addition to this, it is a crucial examination in the infertility work-up. In-office operative hysteroscopy incorporates the outstanding possibility of seeing and treating an intracavitary pathology in the same examination, eliminating all the risk related to anesthesia and reducing procedure-related costs. By now, performing operative procedures in the office setting is recognized as feasible and safe. Over the last 20 years, many efforts have been made to implement the in-office operative approach worldwide. However, for some women, in-office hysteroscopy is still considered a painful experience, with reported discomfort at different steps of the hysteroscopic procedures. Moreover, uneventful and tedious sensations might be increased by a high level of anxiety for such examination. For this reason, despite the feasibility of the in-office approach, many clinicians are still afraid of provoking pain during the procedure and rather not to perform surgical procedures in the office, postponing the removal of the pathology in the operating room. To date, there is no consensus concerning pain management for in-office hysteroscopy and different approaches, pharmacological and non-pharmacological aids, as well as several procedural tips and tricks are utilized. Our purpose is to provide a feasible practical decalogue for the operator, to supply adequate management of pain during in-office hysteroscopic procedures, performing challenging operations, shrinking discomfort, aiming to upgrade both women's and operator's satisfaction.

Intrauterine fundal anaesthesia during endometrial ablation in the office: A randomised double-blind, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of intrauterine fundal anaesthesia during outpatient endometrial ablation.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomised, double-blinded non-inferiority trial was performed in one hospital and one independent treatment center in the Netherlands. A total of 96 women who were planned for a NovaSure® endometrial ablation under local anaesthesia between December 2015 and February 2018 were included in this trial. These women were randomised to paracervical anaesthesia combined with hysteroscopic fundal infiltration with anaesthestics or paracervical anaesthesia combined with hysteroscopic fundal infiltration with saline. The primary outcome was pain during ablation. To study non-inferiority of paracervical anaesthesia without fundal anaesthesia, we assessed the co-primary endpoints Faces Pain Score and Numeric Rating Score. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at other moments during and after the procedure, postoperative use of analgesics, satisfaction, side-effects and complications. The primary outcomes were tested with a non-inferiority margin (2.0 points on changes in pain), and the secondary outcomes were compared using conventional statistical methods.

RESULTS

Paracervical anaesthesia without fundal anaesthesia did not establish non-inferiority to the combination of paracervical anaesthesia and fundal infiltration with anaesthetics when both primary outcome variables of pain were taken into account (Numeric Rating Scale 5.0 versus 3.9 (mean difference 1.2 (95% CI 0.1-2.2)) and Faces Pain Score 5.4 versus 4.8 (mean difference 0.6 (95% CI -0.3-1.5))). Secondary pain scores measured during the procedure were higher or similar in women receiving fundal infiltration with saline as compared to women who received fundal infiltration with anaesthetics. After the procedure, there were no differences in reported pain scores, satisfaction, and side-effects. In the group who received fundal infiltration with saline, more women were admitted to the hospital because of severe pain (3 versus 0 women) and endometritis (1 versus 0 women).

CONCLUSION

This study did not confirm non-inferiority of paracervical anaesthesia without fundal anaesthesia to the combination of paracervical anaesthesia with fundal anaesthesia in the reduction of pain during endometrial ablation and therefore provides no reason to leave out fundal anaesthesia. We recommend to use fundal anaesthesia combined with paracervical anaesthesia to reduce pain during endometrial ablation in the office.