Comparison of silastic rings and electrocoagulation for laparoscopic tubal ligation under local anesthesia.
OBJECTIVE: To compare objectively the pain associated with tubal occlusion by Silastic rings versus electrocoagulation during laparoscopic tubal ligation under local anesthesia. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic tubal ligation under local anesthesia were randomized to Silastic rings (N = 50) or electrocoagulation (N = 52) as the method of tubal occlusion. Sterilization was performed under local anesthesia in a standard fashion. Bupivacaine 0.5% was used as the local anesthetic agent. Operative pain was measured based on intraoperative anesthesia requirements and a modified McGill pain questionnaire. This questionnaire was used to assess pain at 15 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: Demographics were similar for the two groups. Operative time was shorter in the Silastic-ring group (16.7 versus 21.8 minutes; P = .001), and this group also required less intraoperative anesthesia (P = .004). There were no statistical differences between the groups in self-reported pain intraoperatively or postoperatively. No patient in either group required antiemetics or pain medication in the recovery room. CONCLUSION: Silastic rings appear preferable to bipolar electrocoagulation for laparoscopic tubal sterilization under local anesthesia when long-acting local agents are used for tubal anesthesia.[1]References
- Comparison of silastic rings and electrocoagulation for laparoscopic tubal ligation under local anesthesia. Lipscomb, G.H., Stovall, T.G., Ramanathan, J.A., Ling, F.W. Obstetrics and gynecology. (1992) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
