Cited by 19Anesthesia and Pain ManagementMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsPain Management and Opioid Use

Perineal infiltration with lidocaine 1%, ropivacaine 0.75%, or placebo for episiotomy repair in parturients who received epidural labor analgesia: a double-blind randomized study

Schinkel, N., Colbus, L., Soltner, C., Parot-Schinkel, E., Naar, L., Fournié, A., Granry, J.-C., Beydon, L.·2010·International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia

Abstract

Background Episiotomies are performed in approximately 20% of vaginal deliveries and may result in postpartum pain. Perineal infiltration with lidocaine during the episiotomy is widely used, despite an early study showing no difference when compared with saline. Ropivacaine has increasingly been used in the obstetric setting, although not for episiotomies. We sought to compare the analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine, lidocaine or saline for perineal infiltration before repair of a mediolateral episiotomy in patients who delivered with epidural labor analgesia. Methods In this double-blind randomized prospective study, infiltration with 15 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine, 1% lidocaine, or saline was performed immediately before initiating the perineal repair. During the first 24 h, the time to the first oral analgesic, analgesic intake, visual analog scale scores for pain, and patient satisfaction scores were recorded. Results A total of 154 patients were included. Demographic data were comparable between the groups. Time to first oral analgesic request was 13.9h with 0.75% ropivacaine, 17.0 h with 1% lidocaine, and 16.6 h with saline (P=0.104); the proportion of patients who did not request oral analgesics were 35%, 54% and 53%, respectively (P=0.09). Visual analog pain scores were low and not different between the three groups (ropivacaine 16.8+/-11.6, lidocaine 12.4+/-9.7; and saline 16.2+/-11.5, P=0.08). Conclusion For the first 24 h, perineal infiltration of ropivacaine, lidocaine,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijoa.2009.11.005

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schinkel, N., Colbus, L., Soltner, C., Parot-Schinkel, E., Naar, L., Fournié, A., Granry, J.-C., & Beydon, L.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers (FR)
Venue
International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
293-297
ISSN
0959-289X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030512313
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
ropivacaine, lidocaine, episiotomy repair, mediolateral episiotomy, post-episiotomy pain, labor epidural analgesia, postpartum analgesia, local anesthetics, VAS pain score, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Ropivacaine, Adult, Amides, Anesthesia, Local, Anesthetics, Local, Double-Blind Method, Episiotomy, Female, Humans, Lidocaine, Pain Measurement, Perineum, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Analgesia, Epidural, Survival Analysis, Analgesia, Obstetrical, Patient Satisfaction, Sample Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review