Urology · 2007
Comparative analysis of effectiveness of two local anesthetic techniques in men undergoing no-scalpel vasectomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
White Michael A, Maatman Thomas J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of two local anesthetic techniques in men undergoing no-scalpel vasectomy.
METHODS: Before undergoing no-scalpel vasectomy, 50 men underwent separate forms of anesthesia to each side of their scrotum. One vas deferens was anesthetized with a high-pressure spray of 0.3 mL 2% lidocaine using the MadaJet Medical Injector, and the other vas deferens was anesthetized using the traditional vasal block performed with three 1.7-mL ampules of mepivacaine using a 27-gauge needle. The pain of the initial delivery of anesthesia and the pain with the subsequent vasectomy were recorded.
RESULTS: Fifty men underwent no-scalpel vasectomy with a different anesthetic delivery system to each vas deferens separately. A statistically significant reduction was noted in the visual analog pain scores in favor of no-needle administration of anesthesia, 1.56 of 10 versus 2.12 of 10 (P <0.029). A reduction was noted in the visual analog pain score for the subsequent vasectomy after administration of anesthesia using the no-needle method, but this was not statistically significant (1.68 of 10 versus 1.86 of 10; P <0.66).
CONCLUSIONS: No-needle anesthesia with jet injection reduced the pain associated with traditional delivery of anesthesia to the skin and vas deferens before no-scalpel vasectomy. Additional studies are needed with more subjects to evaluate whether the decrease in procedural pain is statistically significant when comparing the two types of anesthetics.
METHODS: Before undergoing no-scalpel vasectomy, 50 men underwent separate forms of anesthesia to each side of their scrotum. One vas deferens was anesthetized with a high-pressure spray of 0.3 mL 2% lidocaine using the MadaJet Medical Injector, and the other vas deferens was anesthetized using the traditional vasal block performed with three 1.7-mL ampules of mepivacaine using a 27-gauge needle. The pain of the initial delivery of anesthesia and the pain with the subsequent vasectomy were recorded.
RESULTS: Fifty men underwent no-scalpel vasectomy with a different anesthetic delivery system to each vas deferens separately. A statistically significant reduction was noted in the visual analog pain scores in favor of no-needle administration of anesthesia, 1.56 of 10 versus 2.12 of 10 (P <0.029). A reduction was noted in the visual analog pain score for the subsequent vasectomy after administration of anesthesia using the no-needle method, but this was not statistically significant (1.68 of 10 versus 1.86 of 10; P <0.66).
CONCLUSIONS: No-needle anesthesia with jet injection reduced the pain associated with traditional delivery of anesthesia to the skin and vas deferens before no-scalpel vasectomy. Additional studies are needed with more subjects to evaluate whether the decrease in procedural pain is statistically significant when comparing the two types of anesthetics.