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 |
_version_ | 1783500664250302464 |
---|---|
author | Wilson, G. Anthony Jeter, Julie W. Dabbs, William S. Stevens, Amy Barger Heidel, Robert E. Chamberlin, Shaunta’ M. |
author_facet | Wilson, G. Anthony Jeter, Julie W. Dabbs, William S. Stevens, Amy Barger Heidel, Robert E. Chamberlin, Shaunta’ M. |
author_sort | Wilson, G. Anthony |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7038542 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70385422020-03-02 Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal Wilson, G. Anthony Jeter, Julie W. Dabbs, William S. Stevens, Amy Barger Heidel, Robert E. Chamberlin, Shaunta’ M. Contracept Reprod Med Research 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. BioMed Central 2020-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7038542/ /pubmed/32123573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40834-020-00104-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Wilson, G. Anthony Jeter, Julie W. Dabbs, William S. Stevens, Amy Barger Heidel, Robert E. Chamberlin, Shaunta’ M. Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal |
title | Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal |
title_full | Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal |
title_fullStr | Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal |
title_short | Comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (MadaJet XL®) for Nexplanon® insertion and removal |
title_sort | comparison of traditional anesthesia method and jet injector anesthesia method (madajet xl®) for nexplanon® insertion and removal |
topic | Research |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wilsonganthony comparisonoftraditionalanesthesiamethodandjetinjectoranesthesiamethodmadajetxlfornexplanoninsertionandremoval AT jeterjuliew comparisonoftraditionalanesthesiamethodandjetinjectoranesthesiamethodmadajetxlfornexplanoninsertionandremoval AT dabbswilliams comparisonoftraditionalanesthesiamethodandjetinjectoranesthesiamethodmadajetxlfornexplanoninsertionandremoval AT stevensamybarger comparisonoftraditionalanesthesiamethodandjetinjectoranesthesiamethodmadajetxlfornexplanoninsertionandremoval AT heidelroberte comparisonoftraditionalanesthesiamethodandjetinjectoranesthesiamethodmadajetxlfornexplanoninsertionandremoval AT chamberlinshauntam comparisonoftraditionalanesthesiamethodandjetinjectoranesthesiamethodmadajetxlfornexplanoninsertionandremoval |