Study | Study period | Study design | Participants | Setting | Interventions | Comparison | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blumenthal and Remsburg [15] | 1990–1992 | Open, serial, quasi-experimental | 35 women with first trimester incomplete abortions | OT, ER or LW, USA | Outpatient MVA under sedation using Fentanyl or Midazolam | Electrical suction curettage in OT | Significant reduction in both procedure time (42 %) and costs (41 %) with MVA |
Egziabher et al. [22] | 1997 | Double blind RCT | 142 women with incomplete miscarriage | Health Centre, Nairobi | MVA under paracervical block with 1 % lignocaine (LA) | MVA under paracervical block with sterile water | LA significantly reduced pain during MVA |
Gazvani et al. [14] | 1998–2000 | Prospective | 57 women with first trimester miscarriage | OT, UK | MVA under systemic analgesia using IV Alfentanil or Midazolam | MVA under patient controlled sedation | No significant differences in MVA success and acceptability rates (100 %) between the anaesthetic techniques |
Edwards et al. [10] | 2002–2004 | RCT, multicenter, non inferiority | 157 women with first trimester miscarriage | OT, ER USA | MVA under LA | EVA under GA or spinal anaesthesia | MVA success rate 97 % vs. EVA 95.2 %, MVA acceptability 70 % vs. EVA 77 % |
Milingos et al. [17] | 2003–2005 | Retrospective observational study | 245 women with first trimester miscarriage | EPAU, UK | MVA under LA | None | MVA success rate 94.7 % |
Tasnim et al. [23] | 2007–2008 | RCT | 176 women with early pregnancy failure | OT, Pakistan | MVA under paracervical block | EVA under GA | MVA success rate 90 % vs. EVA 91 %, Significant less blood loss, shorter hospital stay and reduced cost with MVA |
Kinariwala et al. [24] | 2011–2012 | Retrospective case series | 9 women with early pregnancy failure | A&E, USA | MVA under paracervical 1 % lidocaine, IV and oral analgesia | None | MVA success rate 100 % |