Anaesthesia for evacuation of incomplete miscarriage

Background An incomplete miscarriage occurs when all the products of conception are not expelled through the cervix. Curettage or vacuum aspiration have been used to remove retained tissues. The anaesthetic techniques used to facilitate this procedure have not been systematically evaluated in order to determine which provide better outcomes to the patients. Objectives To assess the effects of general anaesthesia, sedation or analgesia, regional or paracervical block anaesthetic techniques, or differing regimens of these, for surgical evacuation of incomplete miscarriage. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 January 2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), PubMed (1966 to 23 January 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 23 January 2012), CINAHL (1982 to 23 January 2012), LILACS (1982 to 23 January 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs comparing the use of any anaesthetic technique (defined by authors as general anaesthesia, sedation/analgesia, regional or paracervical local block (PCB) procedures) to perform surgical evacuation of an incomplete miscarriage. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and studies that were only available as abstracts. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Data were independently extracted and checked for accuracy. Main results We included seven trials involving 800 women. The comparisons revealed a very high clinical heterogeneity. As a result of the heterogeneity in the randomisation unit, we did not combine trials but reported the individual trial results in the 'Data and analysis' section and in the text. Half of trials have unclear or high risk of bias in several domains. We did not find any trial reporting data about maternal mortality. In terms of postoperative pain, PCB does not improve the control of postoperative pain when it is compared against sedation/analgesia or versus no anaesthesia/no analgesia. In the comparison of PCB with lidocaine versus PCB with saline solution, significant differences favouring the group with lidocaine were found in one trial (moderate or severe postoperative pain) (risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.59 When opioids were used, postoperative nausea and vomiting was more frequent in two trials comparing those versus PCB. In terms of requirement of blood transfusion, two trials showed conflicting results. Authors' conclusions Particular considerations that influence the choice of anaesthesia for this procedure such as availability, effectiveness, safety, side effects, practitioner's choice, costs and woman's preferences of each technique should continue to be used until more evidence supporting the use of one technique or another

A systematic review and trial sequential analysis of intravenous vs. oral peri-operative paracetamol

Postoperative pain might be different after intravenous vs. oral paracetamol. We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in patients >15 years that compared intravenous with oral paracetamol for postoperative pain. We identified 14 trials with 1695 participants. There was inconclusive evidence for an effect of route of paracetamol administration on postoperative pain at 0–2 h (734 participants), 2–6 h (766 participants), 6–24 h (1115 participants) and >24 h (248 participants), with differences in standardised mean (95%CI) pain scores for intravenous vs. oral of −0.17 (−0.45 to 0.10), −0.09 (−0.24 to 0.06), 0.06 (−0.12 to 0.23) and 0.03 (−0.22 to 0.28), respectively. Trial sequential analyses suggested that a total of 3948 participants would be needed to demonstrate a meaningful difference in pain or its absence at 0–2 h. There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Intravenous paracetamol is more expensive than oral paracetamol. Substitution of oral paracetamol in half the patients given intravenous paracetamol in our hospital would save around £ 38,711 (€ 43,960 or US$ 47,498) per annum