Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 80, Issue 6, Pages 578-582 (December 2009)


View previous. 17 of 20 View next.

Impact of paracervical block on postabortion pain in patients undergoing abortion under general anesthesia

Gweneth B. LazenbyCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Nicholas S. Fogelson, Tod Aeby

Received 3 February 2009; received in revised form 15 May 2009; accepted 21 May 2009. published online 13 July 2009.

Abstract 

Background

Paracervical block is used as a way to decrease postoperative pain in patients having abortions under general anesthesia. To date, no studies have evaluated the efficacy of this practice.

Study Design

Patients were recruited from a university-based family planning clinic. Seventy-two patients seeking abortion under general anesthesia were enrolled into the single-blinded study. Thirty-nine patients were randomized to receive a paracervical block, and 33 were randomized to no local anesthesia. The patients completed a demographic survey and visual analog pain scales for pain prior to and at several time points after the procedure. Data regarding the need for additional pain medications postoperatively were recorded. Analysis of variance single factor and two-sample one-sided t test were used in data analysis.

Results

Experimental and control groups were similar in all measured demographic characteristics. They were also similar in gestational age, number of laminaria required, preoperative dilation, operative time, estimated blood loss and reported complications.

Postoperative pain was not significantly affected by placement of a paracervical block prior to abortion under general anesthesia. The need for postoperative pain medication during recovery was similar between groups.

Conclusion

This study does not support the hypothesized benefit of local anesthesia prior to surgical abortion under general anesthesia to reduce postoperative pain.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Hawaii John A Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, HI 96821, USA

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Charleston, SC 29425, USA.

PII: S0010-7824(09)00278-9

doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.05.125


View previous. 17 of 20 View next.

Advertisement