European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology
-
Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. · Sep 1992
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparative study of intramuscular ketorolac and pethidine in labour pain.
A single dose block randomised double-blind study comparing intramuscular ketorolac, 50 mg of pethidine and 100 mg pethidine was carried out in multiparous women. Pain intensity and sedation effect were recorded at inclusion to the study, half hourly for the first 2 h, then hourly until 6 h after delivery. Maternal and neonatal side effects were noted including the Apgar scores and the baby's requirements for resuscitation. ⋯ Maternal sedation and fetal depression were statistically less in the ketorolac group. Although ketorolac had inferior analgesic effect, its use was not associated with clinically significant sequelae and it showed a superior safety profile compared with either dose of pethidine. The study was not powerful enough to detect a difference between 50 mg and 100 mg of pethidine.
-
Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. · Mar 1990
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialMaternal opinion about analgesia in labour and delivery. A comparison of epidural blockade and intramuscular pethidine.
In a prospective randomized study we evaluated the opinion of 97 parturients on either epidural analgesia or parenteral pethidine with respect to analgesic efficacy, general feelings and symptoms during labour and delivery. The analgesic effect of the epidural block was significantly superior to pethidine with regard to the pain score (visual analogue scale (VAS)0 during the first stage of labour (mean VAS 11 contrasting 65). ⋯ Fewer side effects were registered in the epidural group compared to the pethidine group, however only significantly concerning sleepiness. It is concluded that in this study low-dose epidural analgesia during the first stage of labour was superior to parenteral pethidine regarding pain relief and side effects.
-
Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. · May 1988
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialOil or aqueous contrast media for hysterosalpingography: a prospective, randomized, clinical study.
In this prospective randomized clinical study the pregnancy rate and the quality of the images obtained by hysterosalpingography (HSG) in 175 women with fertility problems have been compared using an oil-soluble contrast medium and an aqueous contrast medium. After the HSG there was a follow-up period of 6 months. No statistically significant difference in pregnancy rate was found. ⋯ The oil-soluble contrast medium gave a more sharply outlined uterine cavity, the aqueous contrast medium showed more tubal details. Furthermore, the control picture with the aqueous contrast medium can be prepared after ten minutes. We conclude that the use of an aqueous contrast medium for routine HSG is preferable.