Journals / Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association / 2010 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4

İntrautein lidokain, paraservikal blok ve oral etodolak uygulamalarının endometrial biopside ağrıyı azaltmadaki etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması

Comparison of the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine, paracervical block and oral etodolac for decreasing pain in endometrial biopsy

Pages
178–181
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: Pain scores in intrauterine lidocaine group (2nd group) were found statistically significantly lower than the other three groups (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare the effectiveness of paracervical block, intrauterine lidocaine and oral etodolac in decreasing the pain caused by pipelle endometrial sampling.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: The study was performed between April 2006 and October 2006 in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Research Hospital.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: Pain scores in intrauterine lidocaine group (2nd group) were found statistically significantly lower than the other three groups (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of paracervical block, intrauterine lidocaine and oral etodolac in decreasing the pain caused by pipelle endometrial sampling. A secondary goal of this study was to determine the adverse effects and compare possible effects of these methods on pulse and blood pressure. Material and Methods: The study was performed between April 2006 and October 2006 in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Research Hospital. One-hundred twenty patients were randomized into four groups: 1. Group: Paracervical block was performed with 3 ml 2% prilocaine solution. 2. Group: Five ml of 2% lidocaine solution was instilled through the endocervix into the uterine cavity. 3. Group: Subjects received 400 mg oral etodolac tablet 1-1.5 hour before the procedure. 4. Group: No method of anesthesia was used in the control group. Endometrial sampling was performed with pipelle. Severity of pain during the procedure was scored by the subjects according to the “6-point Verbal Rating Scale (VRS)”. Blood pressure and pulse rate were measured before, during and 30 minutes after the procedure. Results: Pain scores in intrauterine lidocaine group (2nd group) were found statistically significantly lower than the other three groups (p

Özet

Amaç: Endometrial biopsi alınmasında Pipelle kullanımının neden olduğu ağrıyı azaltmada praservikal blok, intrauterin lidokain ve oral etodolakın etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Bu çalışmada ikincil olarak bu yöntemlerin yan etkileri ile nabız ve kan basıncı üzerindeki olası etkilerinin belirlenmesi ve karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma Nisan 2006 ve Ekim 2006 tarihleri arasında Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Arastırma Hastanesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Dogum kliniğinde gerçekleştirildi. Yüz yirmi hasta 4 gruba randomize edildi. Birinci gruba; 3 ml %2’lik prilokain ile paraservikal blok yapıldı. İkinci gruba; intrauterin olarak 5 ml %2’lik lidokain uygulandı. Üçüncü grubtaki olgulara işlemden 1-1.5 saat önce oral olarak 400 mg etodolak verildi. Dördüncü gruba ise herhangi bir yöntem uygulanmadı. Endometrial örnekleme pipelle endometrial örnekleme aleti ile yapıldı. İşlem esnasında duyulan ağrının şiddeti olgular tarafından “6-Nokta VRS (Verbal Rating Scale)” ye göre derecelendirildi. Kan basıncı ve nabız işlemden önce, işlem esnasında ve işlemden 30 dk sonra ölçüldü. Bulgular: İntrauterin lidokain grubunun (2. grup) ağrı skorları diger 3 grubun ağrı skorlarından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha düşük bulundu (p>0.05). Sonuç: Pipelle ile endometrial biopsi alınmasında intrauterin lidokain anestezisi, ağrıyı paraservikal blok veya oral etodolaktan daha etkin biçimde azaltmaktadır. Biopsi endikasyonunun menoraji olması ve endometrium kalınlığının 5 mm’den fazla olması ağrı skorlarını yükseltirken, intrauterin lidokain veya paraservikal blok uygulamaları skorları belirgin şekilde azaltmaktadır (p

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLER, A., ERDEMOĞLU, E., KÜÇÜKAYDIN, Z., ŞAHİN, H. G. (2022). İntrautein lidokain, paraservikal blok ve oral etodolak uygulamalarının endometrial biopside ağrıyı azaltmadaki etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4, 178–181. https://ajindex.com/articles/567796

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Koonings PP, Moyer DL, Grimes DA. A randomized clinical trial comparing Pipelle and Tis-U-Trap for endometrial biopsy, Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75: 293-5 2. Cooper J, Erickson M. Endometrial sampling tecniques in the diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Amer. 2000; 27: 235-43. 3. Dogan E, Celiloglu M, Sarihan E, Demir A. Anesthetic effect of intrauterine lidocaine plus naproxen sodium in endometrial biopsy, Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 347-51. 4. Trolice M.P, Fisburne C. Jr, McGrady S. Anesthetic efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine for endometrial biopsy: a randomized doublemasked trial, Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 95: 345-7. 5. Lau WC, Tam WH, Lo WK, Yuen PM. Paracervical anaesthesia in outpatient hysteroscopy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999; 106: 356-9. 6. Nagele F, Lockwood G, Magos A. Randomized placebo controlled trial of mefenamic acid for premedication at outpatient hysteroscopy: a pilot study, Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104: 842-4. 7. Suprapto K. Reed S. Naproxen sodium for pain relief in first trimester abortion, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 150: 1000-1. 8. Lau WC, Tam WH, Lo WK, Yuen PM. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of transcervical intrauterine local anesteshia in outpatient hysteroscopy. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000; 107: 610-3. 9. Zupi E, Luciano AA, Valli E, Marconi D, Maneschi F, Romanini C. The use of topical anesthesia in diagnostic hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy, Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 414-6,. 10. Cicinelli E, Didonna T, Ambrosi G, Schonauer LM, Fiore G, Matteo MG. Topical anesthesia for diagnostic hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy in postmenopausal women: A randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104: 1326-7. 11. Greeg RH. The praxeology of the office dilatation and curettage, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981; 140: 179-83. 12. Grimes DA. Diagnostic dilation and curettage: a reapprasial, Am J Obstet Gynecol.; 1982; 142: 1-6. 13. Hofmeister FJ. Endometrial biopsy: another look, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974; 118: 773-7. 14. Sandmire HF, Austin SD. Curettage as an Office procedure, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974; 119: 82-8. 15. Smith JJ, Schulman H. Current dilatation and curettage practice: A need for revision, Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 65: 516-8. 16. Jaber R. Detection of screening for endometrial cancer. J Fam Pract. 1988; 26: 67-72. 17. Guney M, Oral B, Mungan T. Efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine for removal of a “lost” i