Self-administered lidocaine gel for local anesthesia prior to osmotic dilator placement: a randomized trial. Contraception Schivone, G. B., Lerma, K., Montgomery, C., Wright, P., Conti, J. A., Blumenthal, P. D., Shaw, K. A. 2018


OBJECTIVE(S): To compare pain scores during cervical dilator placement prior to dilation and evacuation (D&E) with patient-administered vaginal lidocaine gel versus lidocaine paracervical block (PCB).STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an unblinded randomized trial of women=18years of age undergoing surgical abortion at=16weeks gestation in two outpatient clinics. We randomized participants to receive self-administered lidocaine gel 2% 20mL intravaginally 15-30min before procedure initiation, or lidocaine 1% 12mL PCB immediately prior to dilator placement. Participants rated their pain at various time points using a visual analog scale (VAS), including anticipated and baseline pain, speculum insertion, tenaculum placement, cervical dilator placement (primary outcome), and speculum removal.RESULTS: We enrolled 72 women and analyzed data for 69 participants. Socio-demographic characteristics and VAS scores at all time points, except for anticipated pain, were similar between groups. The median pain score with dilator placement was 48mm in the gel group and 61mm in the PCB group (p=.23). Procedure times the gel group and PCB group were 3.7min and 5.2min, respectively (p<.01). Lidocaine gel was non-inferior to PCB for reported pain scores (VAS) with dilator placement with a difference in means of-8mm (95% CI -21,5), favoring the gel.CONCLUSIONS: Self-administration of lidocaine gel prior to placement of cervical dilators for D&E is non-inferior to paracervical lidocaine block for local anesthesia and is a potential alternative to PCB for pain management with osmotic dilator placement.IMPLICATIONS: Lidocaine gel and similar products represent non-invasive, non-painful methods of local anesthesia for a variety of outpatient gynecologic procedures. Given our non-inferiority findings, if gel anesthetics are available they should be considered as an alternative to paracervical block.

View details for PubMedID 30500336