Cited by 18Anesthesia and Pain ManagementMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsPregnancy-related medical research

Effectiveness of local anaesthetics with and without vasoconstrictors for perineal repair during spontaneous delivery: Double-blind randomised controlled trial

Colacioppo, Priscila Maria, Gonzalez Riesco, Maria Luiza·2009·Midwifery

Abstract

Objective to investigate the use of local anaesthetics, in the presence or absence of vasoconstrictors, for perineal repair during spontaneous delivery. Design double-blind, randomised-controlled trial. Setting a birth centre, in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Participants from June to December 2004, a total of 96 women were allocated into three groups (first-degree perineal lacerations, second-degree perineal lacerations or episiotomy), and treated with local anaesthesia (1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine with epinephrine) (n=16 per treatment per group). Interventions an initial local infiltration of the anaesthetic solution was given so that episiotomy could be carried out (5ml) and to suture spontaneous lacerations (1ml), followed by repeated doses (1ml) until pain was completely inhibited. Measurements and findings the main outcome measurement was the volume of anaesthetic used during episiotomy and perineal suture. Our data suggest that the concomitant use of the vasoconstrictor resulted in a significantly lower average volume used in the treatment of first-degree (1ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-1.6) and second-degree (3.7ml, 95% CI 1.6-5.8) lacerations (p=0.002 and 0.001, respectively). A 0.3ml (95% CI 1.5-2.1) average decrease in anaesthetic volume was observed with episiotomy (p=0.724). The maximum volume of anaesthetic used with and without vasoconstrictor was 1-2ml in 95% and 3-4ml in 50% of first-degree lacerations, respectively, and 1-6ml in 88% and 7-15ml in 81…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.midw.2006.12.006

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
Colacioppo, P. M., & Gonzalez Riesco, M. L.
Affiliations
Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Colacioppo, Priscila Maria
Venue
Midwifery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
88-95
ISSN
0266-6138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077677685
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Midwifery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scientific Electronic Library Online (São Paulo Research Foundation, Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
local anesthesia, vasoconstrictors, epinephrine, lidocaine, perineal repair, episiotomy, perineal tears, spontaneous delivery, perineal pain, birth centers
MeSH terms
Adult, Anesthesia, Local, Anesthetics, Local, Brazil, Combined Modality Therapy, Double-Blind Method, Episiotomy, Female, Humans, Obstetric Labor Complications, Midwifery, Postoperative Pain, Perineum, Pregnancy, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Treatment Outcome, Lacerations

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