Anesthetic methods for reduction of acute shoulder dislocations: a prospective randomized study comparing intraarticular lidocaine with intravenous analgesia and sedation. Comparative study of intra-articular lidocaine and intravenous meperidine/diazepam for shoulder dislocations. Pain relief during oocyte retrieval with a new short duration electro-acupuncture technique--an alternative to conventional analgesic methods. Electro-acupuncture versus conventional analgesia: a comparison of pain levels during oocyte aspiration and patients' experiences of well-being after surgery. Electro-acupuncture as a peroperative analgesic method and its effects on implantation rate and neuropeptide Y concentrations in follicular fluid.
A prospective, randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate whether local intraarticular lidocaine injection (IAL) is equally effective in facilitating reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations (AASD) as intravenous analgesia/sedation (IVAS). The setting was an urban, Level 1, trauma center. Patients enrolled presented to the emergency department (ED) with radiographically confirmed AASD and were randomized either to the IVAS group or the IAL group. Ease of reduction and pain associated with reduction were measured subjectively using a 10-point scale. There were 49 patients entered into the study, 20 in the IVAS group and 29 in the IAL group. There was no statistically significant difference between mean +/- SD pain scores of 3.32+/-2.39 in the IVAS group and 4.90+/-2.34 in the IAL group (P = .18), or mean +/- SD ease of reduction scores of 3.32+/-2.36 in the IVAS group and 4.45+/-2.46 in the IAL group (P = .12). Although IVAS tended to have a higher success rate (20 of 20) than IAL (25 of 29) in this study, Kaplan-Meier estimates for delayed time-events curves applying the log-rank test showed that this difference was not statistically significant overall (P = .16). However, with reduction rate evaluated as a function of time delay in seeking treatment, patients presenting 5.5 hours after dislocation were more likely to fail treatment with IAL (P = .00001). Additionally, half of the patients in the IAL group who had experience with IVAS did not favor IAL. Emergency physicians should be aware of IAL as an alternative technique that may be considered in patients when there are reasons to avoid systemic analgesia or sedation. The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous meperidine and diazepam during the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations. Patients were randomized to one of the two methods before the reduction of shoulder dislocations. Patients marked a visual analog pain scale at baseline, after anesthesia just before reduction, and at the time of discharge. Interference with the procedure caused by pain or lack of muscle relaxation, perception of adequacy of analgesia by the patient, adverse effects, and time to discharge from the Emergency Department (ED) were measured. Differences of outcomes, relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived. Fifty-four patients with anterior shoulder dislocations presenting from May 21, 1998 through January 21, 1999 were included in this study; 29 were randomly assigned to receive intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) and 25 to receive intravenous meperidine/diazepam (IVMD). IAL was less effective than IVMD in relieving pre-reduction pain (p = 0.045) but equally effective in overall pain relief (p = 0.98). IAL was more effective than IVMD in shortening recovery time (p = 0.025). There was an indication favoring IVMD in terms of physician-perceived muscle relaxation and patient's perception of analgesia adequacy. In conclusion, although the IVMD method appears to have some clinically and statistically significant advantages, IAL possesses some favorable features that render it to be an analgesia alternative in shoulder dislocation reduction. Acupuncture previously has proved its pain-relieving effect for ovum pick-up (OPU). The analgesic effect of electro-acupuncture (EA) was evaluated when EA was applied for only a few minutes prior to OPU in an attempt to make EA more attractive for clinical use.
                Two hundred patients undergoing OPU were randomized prospectively using sealed, unlabelled envelopes, to receive pain relief with either EA in combination with a paracervical block (PCB) (n = 100) or conventional medical analgesia (CMA) in combination with a PCB (n = 100). A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain and anxiety before, during and after OPU. The primary outcome measure was pain relief; secondary end-points were costs, time to discharge and clinical outcome parameters.
                There were no differences in any VAS ratings before the procedure. Directly after OPU, the EA group reported significantly higher mean and maximum pain, and 'pain now' than the CMA group. At 30 min after OPU and thereafter, no significant differences were found between the groups regarding abdominal pain. Time to discharge and costs were significantly lower in the EA group compared with the CMA group. No differences in clinical outcome parameters were seen.
                A significant difference was found between the EA and the CMA groups regarding pain during the OPU, probably due to the fact that the CMA group was pre-medicated as part of the study design. Despite a per-operative difference in pain rating, EA, given a few minutes prior to OPU, is a good alternative to CMA. The procedure is well tolerated by the patients, with a shorter hospitalization time and lower costs. The primary aims were to compare the pain-relieving effect and post-operative well-being between electro-acupuncture analgesia (EA) and conventional analgesia (CA) comprising opiates. Further aims were to compare time for mobilization, and costs for time and drug consumption.
                In all, 160 women undergoing IVF were randomized, according to a computer-generated list, to EA or CA. Well-being was evaluated with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Pain and subjective expectations and experiences were recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Time and drug consumption were recorded.
                Although VAS pain ratings were significantly higher at oocyte aspiration (P < 0.0001) and after retrieval (P < 0.01) in the EA than in the CA group, they were similar 60 min after surgery. Both groups had similar STAI well-being scores. The EA group was significantly less tired and confused than the CA group after oocyte aspiration. No significant differences in time and costs for drug consumption were noted.
                EA cannot generally be recommended as a pain-relieving method at oocyte aspiration but might be an alternative for women desiring a non-pharmacological method. An advantage of EA is less post-operative tiredness and confusion compared with CA. In a previous study on the effect of electro-acupuncture (EA) in combination with a paracervical block (PCB) as an analgesic method during oocyte aspiration in IVF treatment, EA appeared to increase the pregnancy rate. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that EA as an analgesic during oocyte aspiration would result in: (i) a better IVF pregnancy rate than with alfentanil; (ii) peroperative analgesia that was as good as that produced by alfentanil; (iii) less postoperative abdominal pain, nausea and stress; and (iv) a reduction in the use of additional analgesics. Neuropeptide Y (NPY) concentrations in follicular fluid (FF) were analysed when possible.
                In this prospective, randomized, multicentre clinical trial, 286 women undergoing oocyte aspiration were randomly allocated to the EA group (EA plus a PCB) or to the alfentanil group (alfentanil plus a PCB). No significant differences were found between the EA and alfentanil groups in any of the IVF variables. NPY concentrations in FF were significantly higher in the EA group compared with the alfentanil group. No correlation between pregnancy rate and NPY concentrations was found in either analgesic group. Both EA plus a PCB and alfentanil plus a PCB induced adequate peroperative analgesia during oocyte aspiration evaluated using the visual analogue scale. After 2 h, the EA group reported significantly less abdominal pain, other pain, nausea and stress than the alfentanil group. In addition, the EA group received significantly lower amounts of additional alfentanil than the alfentanil group.
                EA does not improve pregnancy rate in the present clinical situation. The observation that NPY concentrations in FF were higher in the EA group may be important for human ovarian steroidogenesis. The analgesic effects produced by EA are as good as those produced by conventional analgesics, and the use of opiate analgesics with EA is lower than when conventional analgesics alone are used.
We observed no significant difference between IAL and IVAS with regard to the immediate success rate of reduction, pain during reduction, post-reduction pain relief and reduction failure. Compared to IVAS, IAL may be less expensive and may be associated with fewer adverse effects and a shorter recovery time.