Intracervical block and pain perception during the performance of a hysterosalpingogram: A randomized controlled trial

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 109, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 89-93

  Robinson, Randal D ^a   Casablanca, Yovanni ^b   Pagano, Katherine E ^b   Arthur, Nancy A ^b   Bates, G Wright ^b   Propst, Anthony M ^b  

^a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology ^*  (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIDOCAINE; PLACEBO; SODIUM CHLORIDE;

ADULT; ANALGESIA; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; INTRACERVICAL BLOCK; NOCICEPTION; OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; ANESTHETICS, LOCAL; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; LIDOCAINE; PAIN;

EID: 33845932780     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000247645.52211.41     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Varpula M. Hysterosalpingography with balloon catheter versus a cannula: evaluation of patient pain. Radiology 1989;172:745-7.
2. Lorino CO, Prough SG, Aksel S, Abuzeid M, Alexander SE, Wiebe RH. Pain relief in hysterosalpingography: a comparison of analgesics. J Reprod Med 1990;35:533-6.
3. Owens OM, Schiff I, Kaul AF, Cramer DC, Burt RA. Reduction of pain following hysterosalpingogram by prior analgesic administration. Fertil Steril 1985;43:146-8.
4. Elson EM, Ridley NT. Paracetamol as a prophylactic analgesic for hysterosalpingography: a double blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Radiol 2000;55:675-8.
5. Costello MF, Horrowitz S, Steigrad S, Saif N, Bennett M, Egangaki A. Trancervical intrauterine topical local anesthetic at hysterosalpingography: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2002;78:1116-22.
6. Frishman GN, Spencer PK, Weitzen S, Plosker S, Shafi F. The use of intrauterine lidocaine to minimize pain during hysterosalpingography: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:1261-6.
7. Wiebe ER. Comparison of the efficacy of different local anesthetics and techniques of local anesthesia in therapeutic abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:131-4.
8. Cicinelli E, Didonna T, Schonauer LM, Stragapede S, Falco N, Pansini N. Paracervical anesthesia for hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy in postmenopausal women: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Reprod Med 1998;43:1014-8.
9. Todd KH, Funk JP. The minimum clinically important difference in physician-assigned visual analog pain scores. Acad Emerg Med 1996;3:142-6.
10. Kelly AM. Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain? Acad Emerg Med 1998;5:1086-90.
11. Gallagher EJ, Bijur PE, Latimer C, Silver W. Reliability and validity of a visual analog scale for acute abdominal pain in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2002;20:287-90.
12. Todd KH. Clinical versus statistical significance in the assessment of pain relief. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:439-41.
13. Flaherty SA. Pain measurement tools for clinical practice and research. AANA J 1996;64:133-40.
14. Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J 2001;18:205-7.
15. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimeters? Pain 1997;72:95-7.