Lidocaine Spray Versus Paracervical Block During Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: A Randomized Trial

Efficacy of Lidocaine Spray for Pain Reduction during Colposcopy-Directed Cervical Biopsies: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine spray in reducing the pain during colposcopy-directed cervical biopsy (CDB). Methods: From December 2017 to February 2019, 312 women undergoing CDBs were enrolled. The participants were randomized to three groups: group 1 (lidocaine spray), in which lidocaine spray was applied thoroughly to the cervix; group 2 (placebo), in which normal saline was applied thoroughly to the cervix; and group 3 (control), in which no anesthetic agent was applied to the cervix. Each woman completed a 10 cm visual analog scale to classify the subjective pain experience at three time points: baseline, immediately after biopsy, and 10 min after the procedure. The primary outcome of this study was the biopsy pain score. Results: The 312 enrolled women were randomly assigned to the three groups, amounting to 104 women per group. The clinical and pathological characteristics of the participants in all groups were comparable. The baseline, the biopsy, and the post-procedure pain scores were comparable among the three groups. There was a significant increase in the pain score from baseline to biopsy and from baseline to post-procedure in each group. The pain-score changes from baseline to biopsy in the lidocaine spray group significantly decreased when compared with the normal saline group (<0.001), and tended to decrease, though not significantly (p = 0.06), when compared with the control group. No complication with the intervention was observed. Conclusions: The application of lidocaine spray to the cervix has the benefit of reducing the pain associated with CDBs by a small amount. However, the intervention is safe and may be considered in nulliparous and/or overly anxious women undergoing the procedure.

Loop Excision for Precancers of the Uterine Cervix: Local or General Anaesthetic?

Aim

In Germany, treatment of HSIL or AIS of the uterine cervix by loop excision is performed almost exclusively under general anaesthesia (GA). International studies and guidelines show high acceptance of local anaesthesia (LA) due to hermeneutic, medical, and economic factors. We performed an observational comparative study aiming to prove advantages of local anaesthesia within the German health system.

Patients and Methods

In a prospective observational study, patients diagnosed with HSIL or AIS of the uterine cervix were treated at the Institute for Cytology and Dysplasia, Berlin, by loop excision in 2021. We started with a feasibility study : 303 patients diagnosed with HSIL/AIS of the uterine cervix and her colposcopist answered an electronic questionnaire with respect to loop excision under LA. Since we found a high acceptance for LA in patients and colposcopists, we initiated a comparative study LA vs. GA: 322 patients underwent loop excision and selected their mode of anaesthesia: n = 206 LA vs. n = 116 GA. 114 patients of the feasibility study had to undergo loop excision and became part of the comparative study (n = 79 for the LA group, n = 35 for the GA group). All patients received a standardised questionnaire to document their pain score within 24 h after treatment on a visual analogue scale, i.e. VAS, between 0 and 100. 178 patients of the LA group and 80 patients of the GA group completed and returned the questionnaire and form the cohort for our comparison of LA vs. GA. With 191 of these 258 patients, i.e. 74%, a telephone survey was performed to ask for patient satisfaction and the rates of recurrence after a mean interval of 1 year post surgery. We postulate that there will be no clinically relevant significant difference in satisfaction and postoperative pain between patients in the LA group and the GA group.

Results

In the feasibility study , 90% (272 of 303) of patients diagnosed with HSIL or AIS were considered eligible for LA by their colposcopists. 75% (227 of 303) of patients were open to loop excision under LA. In the comparative study , 63 of 206 women of the LA group were interviewed preoperatively: 89% would accept a pain score above 20 during the procedure, 33% a pain score above 50 and 11% of max. 20. Postoperatively, the median VAS pain score for loop excision under local anaesthesia was 13.1 in 178 patients, and pain during injection of local anaesthesia was 20.9 (p < 0.001). The VAS pain score 20 minutes post surgery did not differ significantly between 178 patients after local anaesthesia versus 80 patients after general anaesthesia (p = 0.09). The surgeons estimated the patient's pain significantly less than the patients themselves with an underestimate of -14.63 points on the VAS (p < 0.001). Within 7 days following loop excision under LA, 95.5% of 178 patients would choose local anaesthesia as their preferred method for a potential repeat loop excision, 8.8% of which would like additional painkillers, and 4.5% would choose general anaesthesia.In a telephone follow-up survey of 133 women from the LA group after a mean of 12 months post surgery, 97% were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the treatment carried out. For patient satisfaction and postoperative pain, no clinically relevant significant difference was seen between the LA and the GA group.The rate of secondary bleeding (6.7% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.72), recurrence of HSIL/AIS (3.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.62), and the distribution of the histopathological R status (R0 89.5% vs. 81.1%, p = 0.73; R1 5.3% vs.12.2%, p = 0.57, Rx 4.1% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.65) showed no significant difference when comparing the LA group versus the GA group.

Conclusion

Following loop excision under local anaesthesia, more than 95% of patients would choose this method again for repeat surgery. One year post surgery, 97% of the patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the treatment under local anaesthesia. Offering local anaesthesia for loop excision to patients should be mandatory and included in current guidelines.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Intraoperative Bupivacaine in Gynaecologic Surgery After 24 Hours or 9 Half-Lives

OBJECTIVE

To review all high quality available evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative bupivacaine 24 hours (or 8.9 half-lives) after intraoperative administration at time of gynaecologic surgery and to ascertain whether a second mechanism of action, beyond the initial prevention of sodium channel depolarization and blockade of nerve impulses, may be occurring.

DATA SOURCES

We searched all major databases with an algorithm designed to include all randomized trials that used any form of local bupivacaine, regardless of dose or route of administration, at the time of any gynaecologic surgery and compared its use with saline placebo.

RESULTS

As expected, we found that bupivacaine showed a significant improvement for all gynaecologic surgeries with respect to pain intensity at 6 hours after surgery when compared with a saline group (mean difference [MD] -1.28; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.61], P = 0.07). We also found a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence to the possibility of a second mechanism of action (MD -0.57; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.05], P = 0.01). Further subgroup analysis for pain levels at 24 hours showed significant decreases in pain for the laparoscopy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.54, P < 0.01) and laparotomy (MD -2.60; 95% CI -2.93 to -2.27, P < 0.01)) subgroups but not for the vaginal hysterectomy (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09, P = 0.66) or prolapse surgery (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48) subgroups. There was no significant difference with respect to the length of hospital stay (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.38, P = 0.67).

CONCLUSION

As expected, bupivacaine significantly reduced visual analog pain scores when compared with placebo at 6 hours after surgery, but also showed a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence of a second mechanism of action following the initial sodium channel blockade.

Effects of Mefenamic Acid in Pain Control during Loop Electrical Excision Procedure:A Prospective Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of pre-procedural oral mefenamic acid compared with placebo in women undergoing Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) with intracervical lidocaine injection.

STUDY DESIGNS

A prospective double-blinded randomized control trial. Materials, Setting, Methods: Women undergoing LEEP for any indications were asked to participate in the study. The participants were randomly allocated into two groups. In group 1 (oral mefenamic acid), the participants were offered oral mefenamic acid (500 mg) for 30 minutes before procedures. In group 2 (placebo), the patients were given oral placebo (identical tablet) for 30 minutes before operation. All participants received immediate 10 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 of epinephrine intracervical injection before undergoing the LEEP. All participants were excised in one piece of LEEP. No top-hat excision in this study.  The patients graded their pain on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) at different points during the procedure, including speculum insertion, at starting excision, and 30 minutes post excision. Primary outcomes revealed the difference of VAS during all steps of LEEP by generalized estimating equations procedure.

RESULTS

Sixty participants (30 in mefenamic group and 30 in placebo group) participated in this study. The study did not find differences of VAS during all steps of LEEP and analgesic drug requirement at 30 minutes after LEEP procedure. All patients reported no immediate complications and no intervention-related adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

Using pre-procedural oral mefenamic acid before LEEP procedure was not associated with pain reduction during all steps of excision.
.

Procedural Sedation Using a Propofol-Ketamine Combination (Ketofol) vs. Propofol Alone in the Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) is a brief procedure, it can cause severe pain and discomfort to patients in the absence of adequate sedation. An admixture of ketamine with propofol (ketofol), may reduce patient movement due to insufficient sedation while providing hemodynamic and respiratory stability. This study evaluated the ability of two ratios of a propofol–ketamine combination, compared with propofol alone, to reduce patient movement during procedural sedation for LEEPs. Methods: One hundred and twenty women scheduled for a LEEP were randomly assigned to three groups. Anesthesia was induced with 1 mg/kg propofol (group P), 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.33 mg/kg ketamine (group K1), or 1 mg/kg propofol and 0.66 mg/kg ketamine (group K2). The primary outcome was the incidence of adduction motion in the lower extremities during the procedure. The requirements for respiratory interventions, changes in vital signs, sedation score, additional anesthetic usage, and surgeon and patient satisfaction were also evaluated. Results: The incidence of adduction motion was significantly lower in groups K1 and K2 than in group P (overall p-value <0.001) but did not differ significantly in groups K1 and K2. Group K2 needed more jaw thrust maneuvers than group K1. Additional propofol usage was lower and surgeon satisfaction scores higher in groups K1 and K2 than in group P. Conclusion: A propofol–ketamine combination is more effective than propofol alone in reducing procedural interference during LEEPs. However, increasing the dose of ketamine showed no additional benefit.

The Efficacy of Lidocaine Spray in Pain Relief during Outpatient-Based Endometrial Sampling: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Abnormal vaginal bleeding is one of the most frequent problems found in gynecology. Endometrial histopathology is needed for definite diagnosis. It was obtained either from endometrial tissue sampling or from standard uterine curettage. Office endometrial tissue sampling is an easy and low morbid procedure. It is usually associated with pain and discomfort. Topical anesthetic agent is needed for pain relieving. This study was conducted in outpatient gynecology clinic, Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand. It was a double blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 140 participants were enrolled in study and control group. Each group consisted of 70 cases. Study group received topical spray of 10% lidocaine (40 mg) before endometrial aspiration. Topical spray of 0.9% normal saline was performed in control group. Novak curettage was an application for endometrial tissue obtaining in this study. Visual analog scale (10cm-VAS) was used for pain evaluation. Demographic character of both groups showed no statistical difference. The percentage of participants who had severe pain (VAS≥7) during tenaculum application and Novak curettage insertion and during procedure were 28.5% (20/70) versus 12.9% (9/70), 55.7% (39/70) versus 38.5% (27/70), and 78.5% (55/70) versus 60% (42/70) in control and study group, respectively. Both groups had no significant differences of postoperative pain at 15 minutes and 2 hours. This study indicates that topical lidocaine spray can relieve pain during endometrial tissue sampling.