SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

King's Mill anterior-posterior and transverse versus paracervical block in operative outpatient hysteroscopy: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain control during operative outpatient hysteroscopy remains a clinical challenge, with the paracervical block (PCB) showing inconsistent efficacy. The King's Mill Anterior-Posterior and Transverse (KAPT) block targets the Lee-Frankenhauser plexus within the uterosacral ligament complex, where the highest density of uterine and cervical sensory fibres lies. We compared the KAPT block with the PCB in operative outpatient hysteroscopy. METHODS: Single-centre, participant- and outcome assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial in a UK district general hospital. Forty-eight women undergoing operative outpatient hysteroscopy were randomised 1:1 to the KAPT block or the PCB, each delivered with 10 ml of prilocaine. Pain was measured on a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) during the procedure and 10 minutes post-procedure (co-primary endpoints), and during cervical dilatation (exploratory). Analyses used the Mann-Whitney U test on an intention-to-treat basis, with Hodges-Lehmann median differences, percentile bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, and a hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy. RESULTS: Median intra-procedural VAS was 1 (IQR 0 to 3) with the KAPT block versus 2 (IQR 1 to 6) with the PCB (Hodges-Lehmann median difference -1.00, 95% CI -3.00 to 0.00; p = 0.040). At 10 minutes post-procedure, median VAS was 0 (IQR 0 to 1.25) versus 2 (IQR 0 to 3.25) (median difference -1.00, 95% CI -2.00 to 0.00; p = 0.011). Both co-primary endpoints reached significance under hierarchical testing. Cervical dilatation pain did not differ significantly (p = 0.146). Satisfaction was 100% in both arms; willingness to recommend was 100% (KAPT) versus 95.8% (PCB). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The KAPT block was associated with lower intra-procedural and post-procedural pain than the PCB, with effect sizes consistent with a clinically meaningful difference. These findings support the KAPT block as a superior, anatomically targeted alternative to the PCB and justify evaluation in a larger multicentre trial.Trial registration: ISRCTN15619382.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cryostick pre-cooling reduces pain during intra-articular knee injections: a randomized, contralateral-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular knee injections are essential for osteoarthritis management but often limited by "needle phobia" and procedural pain. The cryostick, a high-thermal-conductivity device, is a potential analgesic; however, evidence regarding its efficacy in reducing pain and bleeding is limited. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether cryostick application reduces procedural pain, reduces bleeding, and improves patient satisfaction during intra-articular knee injections. METHODS: This randomized, contralateral-controlled trial included 50 patients (100 knees) with bilateral knee osteoarthritis. One knee received a 20-s cryostick protocol (-20°C) immediately before injection; the contralateral knee received a standard injection. Primary outcome was pain intensity (100-mm VAS) during needle penetration and at 5-min post-injection. Secondary outcomes included bleeding area (mm2) and satisfaction (1-5 Likert scale). RESULTS: Cryostick application significantly reduced pain during needle penetration (Mean Difference [MD] -24.8 mm; 95% CI -29.9 to -19.7; P < 0.001) and at 5-min post-injection (MD -20.8 mm; 95% CI -26.8 to -14.8; P < 0.001). The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) to achieve the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (13 mm) was 1.28 (95% CI 1.15-1.54) during penetration and 1.79 (95% CI 1.45-2.36) at 5-min post-injection. The bleeding area was significantly smaller with cryostick (MD -4.82 mm2; P = 0.014). Patients reported significantly higher satisfaction scores with the cryostick (4.10 vs 2.96; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 20-s cryostick application is a safe, well-tolerated, and effective adjunct for attenuating pain and bleeding during knee injections. This technically simple approach requires minimal complexity, offering an efficient, non-pharmacological tool to enhance patient comfort.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Improving Patient Comfort of Vibratory Anesthetic Devices With a Dampener: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Vibratory anesthetic devices (VADs) reduce dermatologic injection pain, but their vibration can feel harsh at sensitive anatomical sites. Simple modifications improving patient comfort may enhance VAD adoption. OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated whether dampening VAD vibration with a cotton buffer improves patient comfort and characterized tactile features influencing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-site, participant-blinded pilot study (N = 53), adults received a dampened VAD (D-VAD) and standard VAD (S-VAD) at 5 sites-lateral nasal wall, submalar cheek, ear helix, lateral neck, and dorsal forearm-in randomized, contralateral application. Site-specific preference was analyzed with binomial and Cochran Q tests; demographic associations with univariate analyses. Word2vec and hierarchical clustering analyzed qualitative reasons behind patient preference. RESULTS: D-VAD was preferred at all sites across demographics-lateral nasal wall (88.7%), submalar cheek (84.9%), ear helix (88.7%), lateral neck (77.4%), and dorsal forearm (75.5%) (all p < .001), with strongest preference at face and head/neck (p = .018). Computational semantics analysis of qualitative responses identified 6 themes driving preference: Smoothness, Gentleness, Controlled, Low Frequency, Low Intensity, and Less Bothersome. CONCLUSION: Dampening VAD vibration with a cotton buffer enhances comfort across sensitive sites, with reduced harshness and smoother sensation underlying preference. This simple modification may improve patient experience, encouraging broader VAD adoption.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Less Invasive Surfactant Administration Using Video Laryngoscope to Decrease Pain in Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of video laryngoscope, when compared to conventional laryngoscope decreases pain (assessed by Faceless Acute Neonatal Pain Scale) in preterm neonates while administering surfactant by LISA. METHODS: Preterm neonates < 35 weeks requiring FiO2 > 0.3 on CPAP pressure of at least 6 cm of H2O were administered surfactant by LISA technique either by video laryngoscope (Intervention) or conventional laryngoscope (Control). Faceless Acute Neonatal Pain Scale was used to determine pain 5 min before the procedure, immediately, 5 min, and 10 min after the procedure. The primary outcome was severity of pain; secondary outcomes were time taken to complete the procedure, number of attempts, incidence of IVH, and adverse events during the procedure. RESULTS: In total, 42 neonates of < 35 weeks gestation with comparable baseline demographics were randomized into 2 groups. The median (IQR) FANS score immediately post-procedure in the intervention arm was 2 (2-4) versus 2 (1-4) in the control arm, p = 0.79. There was no statistical difference in the secondary outcomes studied. CONCLUSION: The two groups had no difference in the pain score. The pain experienced by neonates during the LISA procedure was moderate and of short duration and it did not depend on the type of laryngoscope used. Moderate pain during the procedure can be managed with nonpharmacological measures; thereby, the use of sedatives or analgesics can be avoided, which might be of concern. There was no difference in the number of attempts or in time taken to complete the procedure when performed by neonatologists experienced in using conventional laryngoscopes compared to video laryngoscopes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India: CTRI/2022/09/045204 on 05.09.2022.

Humans↗