Cargando…
Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal
BACKGROUND: This study compared a needle-free anesthesia method with traditional local anesthesia for insertion and removal of Nexplanon® long-acting removable contraceptive device. In our clinic, patients often avoid this highly effective form of contraception due to fear of needles. We sought to d...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7038542/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32123573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40834-020-00104-x |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: This study compared a needle-free anesthesia method with traditional local anesthesia for insertion and removal of Nexplanon® long-acting removable contraceptive device. In our clinic, patients often avoid this highly effective form of contraception due to fear of needles. We sought to determine if patients perceived a difference in pain with the injection, anxiety level or pain with the procedure when local anesthesia was given with a needle v/s a needle-free jet injector device. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: jet injector or needle lidocaine delivery. Outcomes were ease of use, patient anxiety level, painfulness, and efficacy of anesthesia method. RESULTS: Patient pain perception with administration of jet injector lidocaine was statistically lower than traditional needle with no difference in anxiety or ease of use, or efficacy of the anesthesia. CONCLUSION: The jet injector device is a reasonable alternative to needle injection delivery of anesthesia prior to insertion/removal of Nexplanon® device. Further studies may determine whether this needle-free alternative for administration of local anesthetic would result in more women choosing Nexplanon® as a contraceptive method. |
---|