Abstract
Objectives: To compare the pain during anesthesia and during the no-scalpel vasectomy procedure for local infiltration anesthesia (LIA), LIA supplemented with spermatic cord block (LIA + SCB), and no needle jet anesthesia. Methods: Bilateral no-scalpel vasectomy was performed in 323 patients during 2007. Of the 323 patients, 65 received LIA, 29 received LIA + SCB, and 227 received anesthesia using the no-needle technique with the MadaJet device. The level of pain during anesthesia administration and the subsequent procedural pain was documented for each technique using a pain scale of 0-10. Results: Pain during the LIA + SCB procedure (mean 1.7 ± 1.6) was significantly less than the pain during LIA (mean 3.3 ± 2.3; P <.01). No statistically significant difference was found between the levels of pain experienced during LIA + SCB and no-needle jet anesthesia (P >> .01 and P >> .05, respectively). Intraoperative pain after LIA + SCB (mean 0.64 ± 1.2) was significantly less than the intraoperative pain after LIA (mean 2.7 ± 2.6; P
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 77-81 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Urology |
| Volume | 74 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jul 2009 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Urology
Cite this
Comparative Analysis of Pain During Anesthesia and No-scalpel Vasectomy Procedure Among Three Different Local Anesthetic Techniques. / Aggarwal, Himanshu; Chiou, Rei K.; Siref, Larry; Sloan, Stewart E.
In: Urology, Vol. 74, No. 1, 07.2009, p. 77-81.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative Analysis of Pain During Anesthesia and No-scalpel Vasectomy Procedure Among Three Different Local Anesthetic Techniques
AU - Aggarwal, Himanshu
AU - Chiou, Rei K.
AU - Siref, Larry
AU - Sloan, Stewart E.
PY - 2009/7
Y1 - 2009/7
N2 - Objectives: To compare the pain during anesthesia and during the no-scalpel vasectomy procedure for local infiltration anesthesia (LIA), LIA supplemented with spermatic cord block (LIA + SCB), and no needle jet anesthesia. Methods: Bilateral no-scalpel vasectomy was performed in 323 patients during 2007. Of the 323 patients, 65 received LIA, 29 received LIA + SCB, and 227 received anesthesia using the no-needle technique with the MadaJet device. The level of pain during anesthesia administration and the subsequent procedural pain was documented for each technique using a pain scale of 0-10. Results: Pain during the LIA + SCB procedure (mean 1.7 ± 1.6) was significantly less than the pain during LIA (mean 3.3 ± 2.3; P <.01). No statistically significant difference was found between the levels of pain experienced during LIA + SCB and no-needle jet anesthesia (P >> .01 and P >> .05, respectively). Intraoperative pain after LIA + SCB (mean 0.64 ± 1.2) was significantly less than the intraoperative pain after LIA (mean 2.7 ± 2.6; P
AB - Objectives: To compare the pain during anesthesia and during the no-scalpel vasectomy procedure for local infiltration anesthesia (LIA), LIA supplemented with spermatic cord block (LIA + SCB), and no needle jet anesthesia. Methods: Bilateral no-scalpel vasectomy was performed in 323 patients during 2007. Of the 323 patients, 65 received LIA, 29 received LIA + SCB, and 227 received anesthesia using the no-needle technique with the MadaJet device. The level of pain during anesthesia administration and the subsequent procedural pain was documented for each technique using a pain scale of 0-10. Results: Pain during the LIA + SCB procedure (mean 1.7 ± 1.6) was significantly less than the pain during LIA (mean 3.3 ± 2.3; P <.01). No statistically significant difference was found between the levels of pain experienced during LIA + SCB and no-needle jet anesthesia (P >> .01 and P >> .05, respectively). Intraoperative pain after LIA + SCB (mean 0.64 ± 1.2) was significantly less than the intraoperative pain after LIA (mean 2.7 ± 2.6; P
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67649170451&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67649170451&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2008.11.023
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2008.11.023
M3 - Article
C2 - 19428086
AN - SCOPUS:67649170451
VL - 74
SP - 77
EP - 81
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
SN - 0090-4295
IS - 1
ER -