ClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT03444727Updated Apr 6, 2022

Treatment Prior to Injection and Biopsy of the Vulva

An interventional study of Ice Pre-treatment and Room Temperature Water Pre-treatment in Vulvar Diseases, Anesthesia and Anesthesia, Local, sponsored by University of Missouri-Columbia. Terminated at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-04-06.

Sponsored by University of Missouri-Columbia · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
Not enough enrollment
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
13
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

This study will compare pre-treatment with ice prior to injection of local anesthetic for vulvar biopsy to no pre-treatment and evaluate pain levels and patient satisfaction with the procedure.

Read the detailed description

To diagnose skin conditions of the vulva and determine appropriate treatment, a biopsy is often taken as an outpatient procedure. Prior to biopsy, the skin is cleansed and injected with a numbing solution. These injections can be quite painful in this sensitive area.

Ice has been used as topical anesthesia in a number of sites, including the cornea, the skin, and particularly in the mouth prior to anesthetic injections. However, there is no evidence for using ice anesthesia prior to injections of the vulvar tissues.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of using ice as pre-treatment prior to the injection of local anesthetic for vulvar biopsy.

02

Conditions studied

  • Vulvar Diseases
  • Anesthesia
  • Anesthesia, Local

Keywords

  • vulvar biopsy
  • ice
  • anesthesia
  • pain
  • vulva
03

In context

Vulvar Diseases

21 studies on the registry are indexed under Vulvar Diseases; 6 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 13 is below the median of 64 across 17 interventional studies indexed under Vulvar Diseases.

Browse Vulvar Diseases studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Missouri-Columbia is the lead sponsor of 365 studies on the registry; 69 are open to participants now.

Of its 43 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 29 (67%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Female
  • 18 years of age or older
  • Undergoing vulva during clinic visit
  • Willing and able to comply with study protocol
  • Able to understand and provide

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to provide
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Biopsy and archival tissue

A biopsy takes a small piece of tissue to examine. “Archival tissue” is a sample already taken, for example at diagnosis, and kept by the hospital.

Whether a stored sample will do depends on when it was taken, how much there is and what the study needs. Ask whether the study accepts your stored sample or needs a new biopsy.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
13 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Ice Pre-treatment

    Participants will hold an exam glove filled with ice to intended biopsy area for 30 seconds prior to preparation and local anesthetic injection.

    Other: Ice Pre-treatment

  • Placebo comparator
    Room Temperature Water Pre-Treatment

    Participants will hold an exam glove filled with room temperature water to intended biopsy area for 30 seconds prior to preparation and local anesthetic injection.

    Other: Room Temperature Water Pre-treatment

Interventions

  • OtherIce Pre-treatment

    Topical application of ice prior to local anesthetic injection.

  • OtherRoom Temperature Water Pre-treatment

    Topical application of room-temperature water prior to local anesthetic injection.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Post-injection Pain Score

    Patient's self-reported visual analogue pain scale (100 millimeter) after injection of local anesthetic. Range from 0 to 100 mm, with 0 being least amount of pain and 100 being the most amount of pain.

    Time frame: Immediately after local anesthetic injection

Secondary outcomes

  1. Post-procedure satisfaction score

    Patient's self-reported visual analogue scale (100 millimeter) for satisfaction with the procedure. Range form 0mm to 100mm with 0 being the least satisfied and 100 being the most satisfied.

    Time frame: Immediately after procedure

  2. Post-procedure anxiety score

    Patient's self-reported visual analogue scale (100 millimeter) score for anxiety level about having another vulvar biopsy in the future. Range from 0mm to 100mm, with 0 being the least anxious and 100 being the most anxious about a future procedure.

    Time frame: Immediately after procedure

  3. Post-procedure pain control score

    Patient's self-reported visual analogue scale (100 millimeter) for satisfaction with pain control during procedure. Range from 0mm to 100mm with 0 being the least satisfied with pain control and 100mm being the most satisfied with pain control.

    Time frame: Immediately after procedure

  4. Post-biopsy pain score

    Patient's self-reports visual analogue pain scale (100 millimeter) score immediately after biopsy. Range from 0mm to 100mm, with 0 being the the least pain and 100 being the most pain.

    Time frame: Immediately after procedure.

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Missouri Ob/Gyn Associated
    Columbia, Missouri 65202, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Kuwahara RT, Skinner RB. Emla versus ice as a topical anesthetic. Dermatol Surg. 2001 May;27(5):495-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2001.00343.x. PubMed 11359502 ↗
  • Chan HH, Lam LK, Wong DS, Wei WI. Role of skin cooling in improving patient tolerability of Q-switched Alexandrite (QS Alex) laser in nevus of Ota treatment. Lasers Surg Med. 2003;32(2):148-51. doi: 10.1002/lsm.10112. PubMed 12561049 ↗
  • Goel S, Chang B, Bhan K, El-Hindy N, Kolli S. "Cryoanalgesic preparation" before local anaesthetic injection for lid surgery. Orbit. 2006 Jun;25(2):107-10. doi: 10.1080/01676830600675392. PubMed 16754218 ↗
  • Leff DR, Nortley M, Dang V, Bhutiani RP. The effect of local cooling on pain perception during infiltration of local anaesthetic agents, a prospective randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2007 Jul;62(7):677-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05056.x. PubMed 17567343 ↗
  • Dixit S, Lowe P, Fischer G, Lim A. Ice anaesthesia in procedural dermatology. Australas J Dermatol. 2013 Nov;54(4):273-6. doi: 10.1111/ajd.12057. Epub 2013 Apr 26. PubMed 23617804 ↗
  • Ghaderi F, Banakar S, Rostami S. Effect of pre-cooling injection site on pain perception in pediatric dentistry: "A randomized clinical trial". Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Nov;10(6):790-4. PubMed 24379869 ↗
  • Lindsell LB, Miller DM, Brown JL. Use of topical ice for local anesthesia for intravitreal injections. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug;132(8):1010-1. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.1397. No abstract available. PubMed 24945871 ↗
  • Lathwal G, Pandit IK, Gugnani N, Gupta M. Efficacy of Different Precooling Agents and Topical Anesthetics on the Pain Perception during Intraoral Injection: A Comparative Clinical Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015 May-Aug;8(2):119-22. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1296. Epub 2015 Aug 11. PubMed 26379379 ↗
  • Davoudi A, Rismanchian M, Akhavan A, Nosouhian S, Bajoghli F, Haghighat A, Arbabzadeh F, Samimi P, Fiez A, Shadmehr E, Tabari K, Jahadi S. A brief review on the efficacy of different possible and nonpharmacological techniques in eliminating discomfort of local anesthesia injection during dental procedures. Anesth Essays Res. 2016 Jan-Apr;10(1):13-6. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.167846. PubMed 26957683 ↗
  • Bhadauria US, Dasar PL, Sandesh N, Mishra P, Godha S. Effect of injection site pre-cooling on pain perception in patients attending a dental camp at Life Line Express: a split mouth interventional study. Clujul Med. 2017;90(2):220-225. doi: 10.15386/cjmed-694. Epub 2017 Apr 25. PubMed 28559708 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 6, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03444727
Responsible party
Kirby Woodall (Resident Physician, University of Missouri-Columbia) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 23, 2018
Start date
Feb 19, 2018
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2021
Completion
Dec 31, 2021
Last update
Apr 6, 2022

Study contacts

Courtney Barnes, MD
principal investigator · University of Missouri-Columbia

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Mar 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion