Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 362–365 | Cite as

Bupivacaine infiltration of the mesosalpinx in ambulatory surgical laparoscopic tubal sterilization

  • Cynthia D. Alexander
  • Bernard V. Wetchler
  • Robert E. Thompson
Article

Abstract

Bupivacaine infiltration of the mesosalpinx was compared to lidocaine, normal saline or no injection for pain relief in women having elective laparoscopic tubal sterilization by Yoon fallopian ring application, One hundred women were assigned randomly to four groups. In a double-blind study, the mesosalpinx was infiltrated in three groups: Group I - lidocaine one per cent; Group II - bupivacaine 0.5 per cent; Group III - normal saline. Group IV (control) received no injection. Pain intensity was reported at four study times by the patients on a self-assessment pain intensity scale. Responses were compared using the Kruskall-Wallis H-Test and Wilcoxen’s Rank-Sum Test. Both tests indicated significant differences in pain intensity levels at various study times. The amount of supplemental fentany I given was used as a secondary measure of effectiveness. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s Multiple-Range Test showed the bupivcaine group to receive significantly less fentanyl (p < 0.05) in the postanesthesia care unit.

Key words

surgery ambulatory outpatient sterilization anaesthetics local bupivacaine lidocaine pain postoperative 

Résumé

On a comparé ľinfiltration de bupivacaine dans le mésosalpinx, è celle de la lidocaïne, du salin normal ou è aucune injection pour le soulagement de la douleur chez des femmes subissant une laparoscopie élective pour stérilisation tuhaire par anneaux de trompes de Yoon. On a réparti de façon aléatoire, 100 femmes en quatre groupes. Dans une étude è double insu, on a infiltré le mésosalpinx dans trois groupes: Groupe 1 - 1.0 pour cent de lidocaïne; Group II-0.5 pour cent de bupivacaine; Groupe III-salin normal. Le groupe IV (groupe-témoin) n’a pas reçu ď injection. Les patients ont rapporté ľintensité de leur douleur è quatre moments dans ľétude, en faisant une évaluation personnelle sur une échelle ďintensité de la douleur. On a comparé les réponses en utilisant le test H Kruskall-Wallis et le test de somme des rangs de Wilcoxen. Les deux tests démontraient des différences significatives dans les niveaux ďintensité de la douleur, è différents moments de ľétude. La quantité de fentanyl supplémentaire donnée a été utilisée comme mesure secondaire de ľefficacité. Une analyse de variance unidirectionnelle (ANOVA) et le,test è écarts multiples de Duncan ont démontré que le groupe bupivacaine recevait significativement moins de fentanyl (p < 0.05) dans ľunité des soins postanesthésiques.

References

  1. 1.
    Hulka J. Interest in reversibility stimulates success of Hulka clip. Same-Day Surgery 1980; 4; 84–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoon F. Falope ring offers safety, limited tubal damage. Same-Day Surgery 1980; 4: 85–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burnhill MS. Pitfalls of the falope ring. Same-Day Surgery 1980; 4; 86–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fishburne JI. Office laparoscopic sterilization with local anaesthesia. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1977; 18: 233–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fishburne JI, Omran K, Hulka JF, Mercer JP, Edelman DA. Laparoscopic tubal clip sterilization under local anaesthesia. Fertility and Sterility 1974; 25: 762–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mercer JP, Hulka JF, Fishburne JI, Kumarasamy T, Omran KF. Spring clip tubal sterilication. Obstet Gynecol 1974; 44: 449–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pelland PC. The application of lidocaine to the fallopian tubes during tubal fulguration by laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1976; 47: 501–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koetsawang S, Srisupandit S, Apimas SJ, Champion C. A comparative study of topical anesthesia for laparoscopic sterilization with use of the tubal ring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150: 931–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKenzie R, Kennedy RL, Chalasani J, Phitayakirb O, Melnick B, Vicinie III BS. Etidocaine for pain relief after laparoscopic tubal occlusion under general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1984; 61: A230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain 1976; 2: 175–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aldrete JA, Kroulik D. A postanesthetic recovery score. Anesth Analg 1970; 49: 924–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mangini RJ, Blaschke RJ, Cohen SN, Tatras DS. Drug interaction facts. 1986 updated edition. St. Louis: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1984: 89, 407.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McEvoy GK (Ed.) Drug information 1986. Bethesda, Maryland: American Society of Hospital Pharmacists: 1986: 905.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia D. Alexander
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bernard V. Wetchler
    • 1
  • Robert E. Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Anesthesia and Obstetrics and Gynecology (R.E.T.)The Methodist Medical Center of Illinois University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiaThe Methodist Medical Center of IllinoisPeoriaUSA

Personalised recommendations