European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of lidocaine spray efficacy in reducing pain in colposcopy-directed cervical biopsies.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zahid Subhan, Raza Imran Mansoor, Ahmad Saniya, Zafar Arfa Maryam, Khan Bilal Yasin, Sehar Sannia, Zahid Huda, Haider Noreen, Khaliq Shahzaib, Rasool Warda, Yasir Zoha, Siddiqui Abdul Hannan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of lidocaine spray in reducing pain during colposcopy-directed cervical biopsy (CDB) by reviewing evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar databases for RCTs investigating the use of lidocaine spray to manage pain during CDB. Pain scores during biopsy were the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including pain during speculum insertion, endocervical curettage, and post-procedure. Risk of bias was evaluated, and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: Four RCTs involving 812 patients were eligible for inclusion. Lidocaine spray significantly reduced pain during biopsy compared to comparator groups (SMD = -0.25, 95 % CI [-0.45, 0.04], p = 0.02, I2 = 57 %). Subgroup analyses showed significant pain reduction when lidocaine spray was compared with no anesthesia intervention (SMD = -0.20, 95 % CI [-0.39, -0.00], p = 0.04, I2 = 0 %) and forced coughing (SMD = -0.84, 95 % CI [-1.28, -0.40], p = 0.0002), but no significant difference was found when comparing lidocaine spray to placebo (SMD = -0.11, 95 % CI [-0.30, 0.08], p = 0.26, I2 = 0 %). Post-procedure pain was also significantly reduced (SMD = -0.26, 95 % CI [-0.41, -0.11], p = 0.0006, I2 = 0 %).
CONCLUSION: Lidocaine spray is an effective and safe option for pain management during CDB, particularly when compared to no anesthesia and forced coughing, however it is notable that it showed similar effectiveness when compared to placebo.
METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar databases for RCTs investigating the use of lidocaine spray to manage pain during CDB. Pain scores during biopsy were the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including pain during speculum insertion, endocervical curettage, and post-procedure. Risk of bias was evaluated, and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: Four RCTs involving 812 patients were eligible for inclusion. Lidocaine spray significantly reduced pain during biopsy compared to comparator groups (SMD = -0.25, 95 % CI [-0.45, 0.04], p = 0.02, I2 = 57 %). Subgroup analyses showed significant pain reduction when lidocaine spray was compared with no anesthesia intervention (SMD = -0.20, 95 % CI [-0.39, -0.00], p = 0.04, I2 = 0 %) and forced coughing (SMD = -0.84, 95 % CI [-1.28, -0.40], p = 0.0002), but no significant difference was found when comparing lidocaine spray to placebo (SMD = -0.11, 95 % CI [-0.30, 0.08], p = 0.26, I2 = 0 %). Post-procedure pain was also significantly reduced (SMD = -0.26, 95 % CI [-0.41, -0.11], p = 0.0006, I2 = 0 %).
CONCLUSION: Lidocaine spray is an effective and safe option for pain management during CDB, particularly when compared to no anesthesia and forced coughing, however it is notable that it showed similar effectiveness when compared to placebo.