Does local anesthesia at mid-trimester amniocentesis decrease pain experience? A randomized trial in 220 patients. Reducing pain with genetic amniocentesis-A randomized trial of subfreezing versus room temperature needles. Does local anesthesia decrease pain perception in women undergoing amniocentesis? Thermoregulatory effects of spinal and epidural anesthesia during cesarean delivery. A double-blind randomized comparison of lidocaine and saline for cervical anesthesia. Spinal or epidural anaesthesia for elective caesarean section? A Swedish experience. Effect of preoperative skin infiltration with 0.5% bupivacaine on postoperative pain following cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. Maternal position during induction of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. A comparison of right lateral and sitting positions. The efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine cream to reduce pain in genetic amniocentesis.
To evaluate whether local anesthesia decreases patients' pain experience during mid-trimester amniocentesis.
                In a randomized trial, one group did not receive local anesthesia while, in another group, lignocaine 1% was injected subcutaneously prior to amniocentesis. Five different scoring systems were used to evaluate patients' pain experience.
                Two hundred and twenty women entered the study: 114 received local anesthesia, while 106 did not. The mean (SD) Visual Analog Scale was 1.4 (1.5) on a 0-10 scale (range 0-7.6). Some 97% of patients described the procedure as not painful or bearable, 79% had expected the procedure to be more painful and 59% reported the amniocentesis to have a comparable discomfort as venous blood sampling; 98% of women declared they would undergo an amniocentesis again if indicated. There were no statistical differences between both randomization groups.
                Mid-trimester amniocentesis is not a painful procedure. Local anesthesia does not affect pain experience during amniocentesis. To determine whether pain associated with second trimester genetic amniocentesis is decreased by using subfreezing rather than room temperature needles.
                Subjects were randomized to a -14 degrees C or room temperature (20-22 degrees C) 22-gauge spinal needle. Patients, blinded to allocation, recorded anticipated and actual pain before and after the procedure, respectively, using a 0-10 visual analog scale with 0 = no pain and 10 = excruciating pain.
                Thirty-three subjects were randomized to room temperature and 29 subjects to subfreezing needles. Anticipated pain was similar in room temperature, 5.1 +/- 1.7, and subfreezing groups, 4.9 +/- 2.0, respectively (p = 0.6). Actual pain was also similar in the room temperature, 3.6 +/- 2.0, and subfreezing groups, 2.8 +/- 2.0, respectively (p = 0.14). Similar numbers of subjects in the room temperature and subfreezing groups reported less actual pain (20 vs. 18), greater actual pain (4 vs. 4) or no difference in pain (9 vs. 5) than anticipated (p = 0.6).
                A subfreezing 22-gauge spinal needle does not decrease perceived pain associated with second trimester genetic amniocentesis. The null hypothesis is that local anesthesia does not decrease pain perception during amniocentesis.
                We performed a prospective randomized study comparing local anesthesia (1% lidocaine) with no anesthesia before amniocentesis in a racially diverse population. Immediately after the procedure, subjects were asked to assess their pain using both a Visual Analogue Scale and a 101-point Numerical Rating Scale.
                Two hundred four women were enrolled; 101 women received local, 102 women received no local, and 1 woman declined the amniocentesis after randomization. There was no difference in pain perception between the 2 groups as measured by either the visual analogue scale or the numeric rating scale (P = .28 and .18 respectively). The correlation coefficient between the 2 pain scales was strong with 0.86 for the local group and 0.92 for the no local group, (P < .001).
                Administration of local anesthesia before amniocentesis does not decrease maternal pain perception. Hypothermia is likely to develop faster during spinal anesthesia than epidural anesthesia. A natural consequence of the rapid temperature decrease during spinal anesthesia is that the shivering threshold will be reached sooner and that more shivering will be required to prevent further hypothermia. We tested the hypotheses that the onset of hypothermia is more rapid and the onset and intensity of shivering earlier during spinal than epidural anesthesia.
                Patients undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to spinal anesthesia or epidural anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was induced by injecting 2 mL 0.5% dibucaine into the L4-L5 interspace. Epidural anesthesia was induced with 20 mL 2% mepivacaine injected into the L2-L3 interspace. Thermal comfort and shivering were scored by a blinded observer.
                Fifteen patients given each type of anesthesia had upper sensory levels > or =T4 dermatome. Sensation was entirely absent from the leg during spinal anesthesia, but lower block levels were near S5 during epidural anesthesia. Tympanic membrane temperatures initially decreased faster during spinal anesthesia, but subsequently decreased at a rate of 0.5 degrees C/h in both groups. The onset and incidence of shivering (detected qualitatively) did not differ significantly between the two groups, but shivering intensity was significantly reduced during spinal anesthesia. Furthermore, the shivering thresholds were 36.4+/-0.3 degrees C (mean+/-SD) during spinal anesthesia versus 37.1+/-0.4 degrees C in those given epidural anesthesia (P=.006). There were no clinically important differences in thermal comfort with the two kinds of neuraxial anesthesia.
                We failed to confirm our hypothesis, but for an unexpected reason: Thermoregulation was impaired more by spinal anesthesia than epidural anesthesia. It seems likely that in our patients spinal anesthesia inhibited thermoregulatory control more than epidural anesthesia because it better blocked sensory input from the legs. To compare bacteriostatic saline and buffered lidocaine for cervical anesthesia to blunt the reported pain during brief suction curettage.
                A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on women presenting for pregnancy termination procedures. Participants received either paracervical submucosal injections of bacteriostatic saline or 1% buffered lidocaine just before cervical dilation. Self-reported pain intensity was assessed at three time points during and 30 minutes after the procedure.
                Fifty-two of 135 eligible women presenting for pregnancy termination procedures participated in the study. Pain intensity ratings in lidocaine and saline treatment subjects did not differ significantly at any point. Our study had a power of 0.94 to detect more than a 15% difference on the 21-point box scale between the two solutions. Only one patient requested her block be repeated, and she had received lidocaine originally. Furthermore, of those women receiving lidocaine, 11% reported mild toxicity symptoms.
                To minimize lidocaine toxicity for a brief suction curettage procedure, bacteriostatic saline or very dilute lidocaine could be considered for the paracervical injection solution. The local anesthetic mechanism may be distention rather than blockage of specific autonomic nerves when there is no waiting period. This would mean that the term paracervical block could be changed to cervical anesthesia. Ninety seven women undergoing elective lower segment caesarean section were randomly divided into two groups, group 1 received spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine and group 2 received mepivacaine 20 mg/ml with adrenaline 5 microg/ml via an epidural catheter. All patients were given a preload of Ringer acetate and Macrodex prior to onset of anaesthesia. Ephedrine 5 mg was given if the systolic blood pressure fell below 100 mmHg. There was a small (<30%) but significant (P<0.01) fall in blood pressure in both groups of women. Six women in the epidural group required supplemental analgesics during the operation compared to only 1 patient in the spinal group (P<0.01). Muscle relaxation was judged to be inadequate in 3 patients in the spinal group and in 5 patients in the epidural group. One patient in the spinal group had a characteristic post-spinal headache lasting 3 days. The injection-delivery time was shorter (P<0.01) in the spinal group compared to the epidural group. The Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min were similar in both groups. The results from our study suggest that spinal anaesthesia is a good alternative to epidural anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. A fall in blood pressure, which is equally possible in both groups of patients, should be prevented by adequate fluid preload and treated immediately by intravenous ephedrine. Recent work suggests that preoperative skin infiltration with local anesthetic may lead to reduced postoperative pain. We have studied this in a randomised, prospective, double-blind trial of 40 women having cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. After establishment of the spinal block, the incision line was infiltrated in 20 women with 30 ml 0.5% bupivacaine and in 20 with 30 ml normal saline. There was no difference in pain scores between the 2 groups on any of the 3 postoperative days, perhaps due to the high quality analgesia provided by supplemental subarachnoid morphine. Forty women presenting for elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were randomly assigned to have anaesthesia induced in either the sitting or right lateral positions; 2.5 ml 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine was injected over 10 s before the mother was placed in a supine position with a 20 degree lateral tilt. The onset time and height of the subsequent analgesic and anaesthetic block was measured. It took longer to site spinal needles in the lateral position (240 vs 115 s, p < 0.001). There was a faster onset of sensory block to the sixth thoracic dermatomal level (8 vs 10 min, p < 0.001), in the lateral group, although onset time to T4 was comparable. There was no difference in maximum block height or degree of motor block. Mothers in the lateral group required more ephedrine in the first 10 m after siting the spinal (13.5 vs 10.5 mg, p < 0.05). Evaluate whether local anesthesia by lidocaine-prilocaine cream decreases maternal pain during mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis.
                This randomized controlled study of mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis was conducted between 1 October 2006 and 30 April 2007. Pregnant women were randomized to receive lidocaine-prilocaine cream or placebo cream 30 minutes prior to amniocentesis. Patients, blinded to allocation, recorded anticipated and actual pain before and after the procedure. The visual analog score (VAS) was evaluated, using a 0-10 scale.
                One hundred and twenty women participated in the present study. Sixty women were randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine group. The two groups were similar with respect to clinical correlations and procedure characteristics. Anticipated pain was 6.1 +/- 2.0 in the lidocaine-prilocaine group and 6.3 +/- 2.3 in the placebo group (p = 0.61). Actual pain was 2.3 +/- 2.2 in the lidocaine-prilocaine group and 2.9 +/- 2.5 in the placebo group (p = 0. 16).
                Lidocaine-prilocaine cream does not decrease pain during mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis.
In general, women who undergo amniocentesis could be informed that pain during procedure is minor and that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of local anaesthetics, leg rubbing or subfreezing the needle for pain reduction during procedure.