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.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Disparities in rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2006; 38: 90-96
- Best practices in surgical abortion.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189: 418-422
- Abortion surveillance-United States, 2004.MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007; 56: 1-33
- The role and comparison of two techniques of paracervical block for pain relief during suction evacuation for first-trimester pregnancy termination.Contraception. 2004; 70: 159-163
- Paracervical block and elective abortion: the effect on pain of waiting between injection and procedure.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 1304-1307
- Control of pain for women undergoing abortion.Suppl Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1989; 3: 131-140
- Pericervical block with vacuum aspiration.J Obstet Gynaecol India. 1979; 29: 557-560
- Intrauterine lidocaine infusion for pain management in first-trimester abortions.Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 1267-1272
- A double-blind randomized comparison of lidocaine and saline for cervical anesthesia.Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 87: 600-604
- Effect of deep injections of local anesthetics and basal dilatation of cervix in management of pain during legal abortions. A randomized, controlled study.Contraception. 1997; 56: 85-87
- Pre-emptive analgesia.Anaesthesia. 1995; 50: 176-177
- Pre-emptive analgesia and protective premedication. What is the difference?.Biomed Pharmacother. 2006; 60: 336-340
- Paracervical block in incomplete abortion using manual vacuum aspiration: randomized clinical trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 943-951
- A randomized comparison of different methods of analgesia in abortion using manual vacuum aspiration.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007; 99: 91-94
- A randomized trial of pain relief in termination of pregnancy in South Africa.Trop Doct. 2005; 35: 136-139
- Surgical Abortion.West End Women's Medical Group, Reno (NV)1998
Article info
Publication history
Published online: July 13, 2009
Accepted:
May 21,
2009
Received in revised form:
May 15,
2009
Received:
February 3,
2009
Identification
Copyright
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
