These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of silastic rings and electrocoagulation for laparoscopic tubal ligation under local anesthesia.
    Author: Lipscomb GH, Stovall TG, Ramanathan JA, Ling FW.
    Journal: Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Oct; 80(4):645-9. PubMed ID: 1407888.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]