Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEl-Shamy, Tarek
dc.contributor.authorJames, Cathryn
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-20T10:56:32Z
dc.date.available2018-08-20T10:56:32Z
dc.date.issued2018-08
dc.identifier.citationJ Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Aug 14:1-151. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1512576. [Epub ahead of print]en
dc.identifier.urihttps://orda.derbyhospitals.nhs.uk/handle/123456789/1634
dc.descriptionAuthor(s) Pre or Post Print Version Onlyen
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Perineal trauma is a common problem that may affect women during vaginal delivery; this trauma can either spontaneous (tear) or intentional (episiotomy). When repair of perineal trauma is required, adequate analgesics must be obtained. Topical products as lidocaine-prilocaine (EMLA) cream is one of the suggested methods, but still there is lack of evidence with regard to its efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to assess the evidence of utilizing EMLA cream in comparison to local perineal infiltration anaesthesia for pain control during perineal repair after vaginal delivery. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Dynamed Plus, ScienceDirect, TRIP database, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched electronically from January 2006 to May 2018 for studies investigating the effect of lidocaine-prilocaine cream in relieving pain during repair of perineal trauma. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: All randomized controlled trials assessing effect of lidocaine-prilocaine cream versus local infiltration anaesthesia in relieving pain during repair of perineal trauma were considered for this meta-analysis. Fifteen studies were identified of which four studies deemed eligible for this review. Quality and risk of bias assessment was performed for all studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted the data from the individual articles and entered into RevMan software. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the Higgins chi-square and (I2) statistics. When heterogeneity was significant, a random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Otherwise, fixed effect meta-analysis was used when there was no significant heterogeneity. RESULTS: Pooled analysis of result in "pain score" was insignificant between the two groups (WMD -1.11; 95% CI (-2.55 to 0.33); p = 0.13). Furthermore, the use of additional analgesia showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (WMD 1.34; 95% CI (0.66-2.71), p = 0.42). Regarding patient satisfaction, overall analysis of three studies showed significant results favouring EMLA cream group users (WMD 4.65; 95% CI (1.96-11.03), p = 0.0005). The pooled analysis of the outcome "duration of repair" showed significantly shorter duration of repair in EMLA cream users (n = 92) than local infiltration anaesthesia (n = 95) (1.72 min; 95% CI (-2.76 to -0.67), p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that topical lidocaine-prilocaine cream gives comparable results in reducing pain during perineal repair after vaginal delivery.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectEpisiotomyen
dc.subjectLidocaine-Prilocaineen
dc.subjectLocal Anaesthesiaen
dc.subjectPerineal Tearen
dc.subjectVaginal Deliveryen
dc.titleLidocaine-prilocaine cream versus local infiltration anaesthesia in pain relief during repair of perineal trauma after vaginal delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.en
dc.typeArticleen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record