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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, G. Anthony, Jeter, Julie W., Dabbs, William S., Stevens, Amy Barger, Heidel, Robert E., Chamberlin, Shaunta’ M.
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