Comparison of 0.5% and 1.0% lidocaine for abortions

International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 71-72

  Wiebe, E R ^a,d   Rawling, M ^b   Janssen, P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Everywoman's Health Centre   (Canada)

^c CHILDREN S AND WOMEN S HEALTH CENTRE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Abortion; Lidocaine; Local anesthetic; Pain

Indexed keywords

LIDOCAINE; LOCAL ANESTHETIC AGENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDUCED ABORTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAIN; PREMEDICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

EID: 0030271702     PISSN: 00207292     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0020-7292(96)02689-6     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. [1] Atrash HK, Lawson HW, Smith JC. Legal abortion in the US: trends and mortality. Cont Ob/Gyn 1990; Feb: 58-69.
2. [2] Grimes DA, Cates W. Deaths from paracervical anesthesia used for first-trimester abortion 1972-1975. N Engl J Med 1976; 295: 1397-1399.
3. [3] Wiebe ER. Comparison of the efficacy of different local anesthetics and techniques of local anesthesia in therapeutic abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 131-134.
4. [4] Wiebe ER, Rawling M. Pain control in abortion. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995; 50: 41-46.