Buffered Lidocaine for Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedures (LEEPs)
NCT ID: NCT01405768
Last Updated: 2014-07-28
Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE2
56 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2011-07-31
2012-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Buffered Lidocaine in Paracervical Blocks
NCT03107754
Effectiveness of Paracervical Block Versus Lidocaine Spray During Endometrial Biopsy
NCT01908738
Thoracic Epidural Analgesia vs Surgical Site Infiltration With Liposomal Bupivacaine Following Open Gynecologic Surgery
NCT04117074
Vaginal Cuff Infiltration With Liposomal Bupivacaine for Pain Relief: A Double Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT05823363
Topic Cervical Anesthesia Plus Paracervical Blockade for Pain Control During Endouterine Manual Aspiration
NCT04791020
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
1. To determine whether buffering the agent used for intracervical anesthetic at the time of cervical loop excision reduces injection-related pain. (Hypothesis: buffering significantly reduces injection-related pain.)
2. To determine whether other components of pain from LEEP (procedural pain, and cramping) can be reduced by buffering of intracervical anesthetic among women undergoing cervical loop excision. (Hypothesis: only injection pain will be reduced by buffering, as procedural pain will be reduced by lidocaine equally in both arms and cramping will not be reduced in either arm.)
Background:
Although cervical cancer rates have been dramatically reduced by Pap test screening and the eradication of precursors, more than 100,000 U.S. women develop premalignant cervical lesions each year that require treatment (1). The cervical loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) is the most common therapy for CIN among U.S. gynecologists. LEEP is performed using one or more 1-2 cm electrosurgical diathermy loops to excise involved and at-risk cervical epithelium including underlying stroma containing glands. Destroying this tissue eliminates cells infected with human papillomavirus, the proximate cause of cervical cancer, and radically reduces the risk of later developing cervical cancer (2, 3).
LEEP is usually performed as an outpatient procedure using intracervical anesthesia, most commonly combining lidocaine as an anesthetic agent with epinephrine as a hemostatic agent; final hemostasis is achieved using electrosurgical fulguration and topical hemostatic agents (4). Prior literature has suggested that pain from LEEP has 3 components: pain from injection of the anesthetic combination, pain from the excision, and cramping from reflex uterine contractions (5). While cramping can be controlled with oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, injection and procedural pain are not. Most women categorize the pain of LEEP as 3-7 on a 0-10 Likert scale (5, 6).
Studies of dermal and ocular anesthesia and bone marrow biopsy have found that buffering of acidic local anesthetic agents reduces injection pain (7-14), with up to 66% reduction in pain and significant results in randomized trials involving 30-50 participants. However, the use of buffered lidocaine has not yet been tested for LEEPs. The principal investigator has used both forms of anesthesia and considers both acceptable forms of therapy; he is unaware of any evidence to support the superiority of either arm.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Lidocaine Arm
Women in this arm will receive plain lidocaine with epinephrine injected into their cervix prior to the LEEP procedure.
Non-buffered lidocaine
Buffered Lidocaine
Women in this arm will receive sodium bicarbonate buffered lidocaine mixed with epinephrine injected into their cervix prior to the LEEP procedure.
sodium bicarbonate buffered lidocaine
8.4% sodium bicarbonate will be mixed with lidocaine in a 1:10 ratio prior to mixing with epinephrine and injecting into the cervix.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
sodium bicarbonate buffered lidocaine
8.4% sodium bicarbonate will be mixed with lidocaine in a 1:10 ratio prior to mixing with epinephrine and injecting into the cervix.
Non-buffered lidocaine
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or 3 or microinvasive cancer
* adenocarcinoma in situ
* persistent CIN 1
* antecedent pap read as
* high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion
* atypical glandular cells
* persistent low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion
Exclusion Criteria
* inability to tolerate procedure under local anesthesia
* pregnancy
* age less than 18 years
* inability to understand spoken or written English
* refusal of consent
* prisoner
* mental incapacity
* anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy, or known bleeding diathesis
* use of analgesics other than over the counter medications(OTC meds include NSAIDS or Tylenol) within 7 days of scheduled LEEP
18 Years
FEMALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Washington University School of Medicine
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
L. Stewart Massad, M.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Washington University School of Medicine
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Washington University School of Medicine
St Louis, Missouri, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Ruegg TA, Curran CR, Lamb T. Use of buffered lidocaine in bone marrow biopsies: a randomized, controlled trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009 Jan;36(1):52-60. doi: 10.1188/09.ONF.52-60.
Sharma T, Gopal L, Shanmugam MP, Bhende P, George J, Samanta TK, Mukesh BN. Comparison of pH-adjusted bupivacaine with a mixture of non-pH-adjusted bupivacaine and lignocaine in primary vitreoretinal surgery. Retina. 2002 Apr;22(2):202-7. doi: 10.1097/00006982-200204000-00011.
Fitton AR, Ragbir M, Milling MA. The use of pH adjusted lignocaine in controlling operative pain in the day surgery unit: a prospective, randomised trial. Br J Plast Surg. 1996 Sep;49(6):404-8. doi: 10.1016/s0007-1226(96)90011-9.
Burns CA, Ferris G, Feng C, Cooper JZ, Brown MD. Decreasing the pain of local anesthesia: a prospective, double-blind comparison of buffered, premixed 1% lidocaine with epinephrine versus 1% lidocaine freshly mixed with epinephrine. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Jan;54(1):128-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2005.06.043.
Younis I, Bhutiani RP. Taking the 'ouch' out - effect of buffering commercial xylocaine on infiltration and procedure pain - a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004 May;86(3):213-7. doi: 10.1308/003588404323043382.
Masters JE. Randomised control trial of pH buffered lignocaine with adrenaline in outpatient operations. Br J Plast Surg. 1998 Jul;51(5):385-7. doi: 10.1054/bjps.1997.0293.
Orlinsky M, Hudson C, Chan L, Deslauriers R. Pain comparison of unbuffered versus buffered lidocaine in local wound infiltration. J Emerg Med. 1992 Jul-Aug;10(4):411-5. doi: 10.1016/0736-4679(92)90269-y.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
201104269
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.