BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021
Nitrous oxide versus lidocaine versus no analgesic for in-office hysteroscopy: a randomised clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Solano Calvo J A, Del Valle Rubido C, Rodríguez-Miguel A, de Abajo F J, Delgado Espeja J J, González Hinojosa J, Fernández Muñoz L, Zapico Goñi Á
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of inhaled nitrous oxide (INO) on pain control during in-office hysteroscopy with 1% lidocaine paracervical infiltration and no analgesic.
DESIGN: Single-blind stratified randomised clinical trial with masked assessment by a third party.
SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a Spanish hospital.
POPULATION: Women who underwent hysteroscopy.
METHODS: Patients were stratified into three groups according to the purpose of the hysteroscopy (biopsy, polypectomy or tubal sterilisation) and then assigned to different treatment groups through a permuted-blocks randomisation within strata. Pain scale was provided by a gynaecologist totally blinded to procedures and treatments. Effects were assessed using a one-way analysis of variance following an intention-to-treat approach.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm.
RESULTS: A total of 314 women were included: 105 to INO, 104 to 1% lidocaine and 105 to no analgesic. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Mean VAS score after the procedure was 34.7 ± 25.8 mm, 36.1 ± 22.9 mm (P = 1.0) and 47.3 ± 28.2 mm (P = 0.001) for INO, 1% lidocaine and no analgesic, respectively. No adverse events were reported in 91 (86.7%) patients in the INO group compared with 79 (76%) in the 1%-lidocaine group (P = 0.04) and 85 (81%) in the no-analgesic group (P = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: INO was as effective as 1% lidocaine in pain control for in-office hysteroscopy and was better tolerated. The no-analgesic group presented the poorer results, so was the least recommended clinical option.
DESIGN: Single-blind stratified randomised clinical trial with masked assessment by a third party.
SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a Spanish hospital.
POPULATION: Women who underwent hysteroscopy.
METHODS: Patients were stratified into three groups according to the purpose of the hysteroscopy (biopsy, polypectomy or tubal sterilisation) and then assigned to different treatment groups through a permuted-blocks randomisation within strata. Pain scale was provided by a gynaecologist totally blinded to procedures and treatments. Effects were assessed using a one-way analysis of variance following an intention-to-treat approach.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm.
RESULTS: A total of 314 women were included: 105 to INO, 104 to 1% lidocaine and 105 to no analgesic. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Mean VAS score after the procedure was 34.7 ± 25.8 mm, 36.1 ± 22.9 mm (P = 1.0) and 47.3 ± 28.2 mm (P = 0.001) for INO, 1% lidocaine and no analgesic, respectively. No adverse events were reported in 91 (86.7%) patients in the INO group compared with 79 (76%) in the 1%-lidocaine group (P = 0.04) and 85 (81%) in the no-analgesic group (P = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: INO was as effective as 1% lidocaine in pain control for in-office hysteroscopy and was better tolerated. The no-analgesic group presented the poorer results, so was the least recommended clinical option.