Paracetamol/acetaminophen (single administration) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal pain is a common but poorly studied adverse outcome following childbirth. Pain may result from perineal trauma due to bruising, spontaneous tears, surgical incisions (episiotomies), or in association with operative vaginal births (ventouse or forceps-assisted births). This is an update of a review last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (9 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, comparing paracetamol to placebo. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. Data from abstracts would be included only if authors had confirmed in writing that the data to be included in the review had come from the final analysis and would not change.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed each study for inclusion and extracted data. One review author reviewed the decisions and confirmed calculations for pain relief scores. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This update identified no new trials so the results remain unchanged. However, by applying the GRADE assessment of the evidence, the interpretation of main results differed from previous version of this review. We identified 10 studies involving 2044 women, but all these studies involved either three or four groups, looking at differing drugs or doses. We have only included the 1301 women who were in the paracetamol versus placebo arms of the studies. Of these, five studies (482 women) assessed 500 mg to 650 mg and six studies (797 women) assessed 1000 mg of paracetamol. One study assessed 650 mg and 1000 mg compared with placebo and contributed to both comparisons. We used a random-effects meta-analysis because of the clinical variability among studies. Studies were from the 1970s to the early 1990s, and there was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias adequately, hence the findings need to be interpreted within this context. The certainty of the evidence for the two primary outcomes on which data were available was assessed as low, downgraded for overall unclear risk of bias and for heterogeneity (I² statistic 60% or greater). More women may experience pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.89; 10 trials, 1279 women), and fewer women may need additional pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55; 8 trials, 1132 women). However, the certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded for unclear overall risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity. One study used the higher dose of paracetamol (1000 mg) and reported maternal drug adverse effects. There may be little or no difference in the incidence of nausea (average RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.66; 1 trial, 232 women; low-certainty evidence), or sleepiness (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.30; 1 trial, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). No other maternal adverse events were reported. None of the studies assessed neonatal drug adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of paracetamol may improve perineal pain relief following vaginal birth, and may reduce the need for additional pain relief. Potential adverse effects for both women and neonates were not appropriately assessed. Any further trials should also address the gaps in evidence concerning maternal outcomes such as satisfaction with postnatal care, maternal functioning/well-being (emotional attachment, self-efficacy, competence, autonomy, confidence, self-care, coping skills) and neonatal drug adverse effects.

Relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution after birth

BACKGROUND

Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping pain (often called after-birth pain) associated with uterine involution, where the uterus contracts to reduce blood loss and return the uterus to its non-pregnant size. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief/analgesia for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia versus placebo or analgesia versus no treatment, for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we include 28 studies (involving 2749 women). The evidence identified in this review comes from middle- to high-income countries. Generally the trials were at low risk of selection bias, performance bias and attrition bias, but some trials were at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and lack of blinding. Our GRADE certainty of evidence assessments ranged from moderate to very low certainty, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations, imprecision, and (for one comparison) indirectness. Most studies reported our primary outcome of adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No studies reported data relating to neonatal adverse events, duration of hospital stay, or breastfeeding rates. Almost half of the included studies (11/28) excluded breastfeeding women from participating, making the evidence less generalisable to a broader group of women. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared to placebo NSAIDs are probably better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.91; 11 studies, 946 women; moderate-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33; 4 studies, 375 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be a similar risk of maternal adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 9 studies, 598 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to opioids NSAIDs are probably better than opioids for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; 5 studies, 560 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of maternal adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; 3 studies, 255 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be better than opioids for the need for additional pain relief, but the wide CIs include the possibility that the two classes of drugs are similarly effective or that opioids are better (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12; 2 studies, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids compared to placebo Opioids may be better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; 5 studies, 299 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 studies, 273 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may increase the risk of maternal adverse events compared with placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55; 3 studies, 188 women; low-certainty evidence). Paracetamol compared to placebo Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if paracetamol is better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events (2 studies, 123 women). Paracetamol compared to NSAIDs Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there are any differences between paracetamol and NSAIDs for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, or the risk of maternal adverse events. No data were reported about the need for additional pain relief comparing paracetamol and NSAIDs (2 studies, 112 women). NSAIDs compared to herbal analgesia We are uncertain if there are any differences between NSAIDs and herbal analgesia for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events, because the certainty of evidence is very low (4 studies, 394 women). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to no TENS Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if TENS is better than no TENS for adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No other data were reported comparing TENS with no TENS (1 study, 32 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs may be better than placebo and are probably better than opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs and paracetamol may be as effective as each other, whereas opioids may be more effective than placebo. Due to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of other forms of pain relief. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and ensure greater generalisability by including breastfeeding women. In addition, further research is required, including a survey of postpartum women to describe appropriately their experience of uterine cramping and involution. We identified nine ongoing studies, which may help to increase the level of certainty of the evidence around pain relief due to uterine cramping in future updates of this review.

Aspirin (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma, due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy), or in association with operative vaginal birth, is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain, and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed. This is an update of the review, last published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (4 October 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 October 2019) and screened reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol or acetaminophen, for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs, 16 of which randomised 1132 women to aspirin or placebo; one RCT did not report numbers of women. Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear, due to poor reporting. We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Aspirin versus placebo Aspirin may result in more women reporting adequate pain relief four to eight hours after administration compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether aspirin compared with placebo has an effect on the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-certainty evidence), or maternal adverse effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-certainty evidence), four to eight hours after administration. Analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences. 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four hours after administration, 300 mg compared with 600 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group. 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four to eight hours after administration, 600 mg compared with 1200 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), the need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women). 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin It is uncertain whether over four hours after administration, 300 mg compared with 1200 mg aspirin has an effect on adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group. None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. No RCTs reported on secondary review outcomes of: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; or maternal postpartum depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single dose aspirin may increase adequate pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy compared with placebo. It is uncertain whether aspirin has an effect on the need for additional analgesia, or on maternal adverse effects, compared with placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Included RCTs excluded breastfeeding women, so there was no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure low risk of bias, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain; future RCTs could be extended to include women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.

Antenatal maternal education for improving postnatal perineal healing for women who have birthed in a hospital setting

BACKGROUND

The female perineum becomes suffused and stretched during pregnancy, and further strain during vaginal childbirth contributes to approximately 85% of women experiencing some degree of trauma to the perineal region. Multiple factors play a role in the type and severity of trauma experienced, including parity, delivery method, and local practices. There is ongoing debate about best midwifery practice to reduce perineal trauma. Once perineal trauma has occurred, treatment also varies greatly, depending on its degree and severity, local practice and customs, and personal preference. In order to optimise wound-healing outcomes, it is important that wounds are assessed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. A perineal wound may cause significant physical and/or psychological impact in the short or long term, however little evidence is available on this subject.Antenatal education serves to prepare women and their partners for pregnancy, delivery and the postpartum period. The delivery of this education varies widely in type, content, and nature. This review examined antenatal education which is specifically tailored towards perineal care and wound healing in the postnatal period via formal channels. Appropriate patient education positively impacts on wound-healing rates and compliance with wound care. Risk factors that contribute to the breakdown of wounds and poor healing rates may be addressed antenatally in order to optimise postnatal wound healing. It is important to assess whether or not antenatal wound-care education positively affects perineal healing, in order to empower women to incorporate best practice, evidence-based treatment with this important aspect of self-care in the immediate postnatal period.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of antenatal education on perineal wound healing in postnatal women who have birthed in a hospital setting, and who have experienced a break in the skin of the perineum as a result of a tear or episiotomy, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (8th September 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8th September 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which referred to all formal methods of antenatal education and addressed care of a potential perineal wound as a result of a tear or episiotomy, which was experienced by pregnant women who planned to give birth within a hospital setting.Trials using a cluster-RCT and a quasi-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies published in abstract form would have been eligible for inclusion in this review, but none were identified.We planned to consider all formal methods of antenatal education which addressed care of a perineal wound. We also planned to consider all contact points where there was an opportunity for formal education, including midwifery appointments, antenatal education classes, obstetrician appointments, general practitioner appointments and physiotherapist appointments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. We excluded one study and one other study is ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We set out to evaluate the RCT evidence pertaining to the impact of antenatal education on perineal wound healing in postnatal women who have birthed in a hospital setting, and who experienced a break in the skin of the perineum as a result of a tear or episiotomy, or both. However, no studies met the inclusion criteria. There is a lack of evidence concerning whether or not antenatal education relating to perineal wound healing in this cohort of women will change the outcome for these women in relation to wound healing, infection rate, re-attendance or re-admission to hospital, pain, health-related quality of life, maternal bonding, and negative emotional experiences. Further study is warranted in this area given the significant physical, psychological and economic impact of perineal wounds, and the large proportion of childbearing women who have experienced a postnatal wound. The benefits of any future research in this field would be maximised by incorporating women in a range of socio-economic groups, and with a range of healthcare options. This research could take both a qualitative and a quantitative approach and examine the outcomes identified in this review in order to assess fully the potential benefits of a tailored antenatal package, and to make recommendations for future practice. There is currently no evidence to inform practice in this regard.

Aspirin (single dose) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma (due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy) or in association with operative vaginal birth) is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol/acetaminophen for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs, with 16 involving 1132 women randomised to aspirin or placebo (one RCT did not report numbers of women). Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to review meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear due to poor reporting.We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (data from 15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Primary outcomes Aspirin versus placeboMore women who received aspirin experienced adequate pain relief compared with women who received placebo over four to eight hours after administration (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received aspirin were less likely to need additional pain relief over four to eight hours after administration (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in maternal adverse effects over four to eight hours post-administration (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences.There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 600 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.There was no clear difference over four to eight hours after administration between 600 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women).There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. Secondary outcomesNo studies reported on secondary review outcomes: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; maternal postpartum depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence to suggest that single dose aspirin compared with placebo can increase pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy. Very low-quality evidence also suggested that aspirin can reduce the need for additional analgesia, without increasing maternal adverse effects. Evidence was downgraded based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias or both. RCTs excluded breastfeeding women so there is no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding.With international guidance recommending mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth, and exclusively breastfeed for the first six months, the evidence from this review is not applicable to current recommended best practice. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Although formal assessment was beyond the remit of this review, current guidance suggests that other analgesic drugs (including paracetamol) should be considered first for postpartum perineal pain. Such agents are the focus of other reviews in this series on drugs for perineal pain in the early postpartum period. It is considered most likely that if RCTs are conducted in the future they could compare aspirin with other pain relievers. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure high methodological quality, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain, future RCTs could be extended to women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.

Oral analgesia for relieving post-caesarean pain

BACKGROUND

Oral analgesia is a convenient and widely used form of pain relief following caesarean section. It includes various medications used at different doses alone or in adjunction to other form of analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral analgesia for post-caesarean pain relief.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.Interventions included oral medication given to women for post-caesarean pain relief compared with oral medication, or placebo/no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies and independently assessed trial quality, extracted the data using the agreed data extraction form, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight small trials involving 962 women (out of 13 included trials) contributed data to the analysis, of which only four trials had low risk of bias.None of the included studies reported on 'adequate pain relief', which is one of this review's primary outcomes. 1. Opiod analgesics versus placeboBased on one trial involving 120 women, the effect of opioids versus placebo was not significant in relation to the need for additional pain relief (primary outcome) (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 1.92), and the effect in terms of adverse drug effects outcomes was also uncertain (RR 6.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 113.96).Low (75 mg) and high (150 mg) doses of tramadol had a similar effect on the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.78 and RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68, respectively, one study, 80 women). 2. Non-opioid analgesia versus placeboThe confidence interval for the lower requirement for additional analgesia (primary outcome) with the non-opioid analgesia group was wide and includes little or no effect (average RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.01, six studies, 584 women). However, we observed substantial heterogeneity due to the variety of non-opioid drugs used (I(2) = 85%). In a subgroup analysis of different drugs, only gabapentin use resulted in less need for additional pain relief (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.51, one trial, 126 women). There was no difference in need for additional pain relief with the use of celexocib, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, naproxen, paracetamol. Maternal drug effects were more common with the use of non-opioid analgesics (RR 11.12, 95% CI 2.13 to 58.22, two trials, 267 women).Gabapentin 300 mg (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49, one study, 63 women) and 600 mg (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71, one study, 63 women) as well as ketoprofen 100 mg (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, one study 72 women) were both more effective than placebo with respect to the need for additional pain relief. However, the 50 mg ketoprofen group and the placebo group did not differ in terms of the number of women requiring additional pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07, one study, 72 women). 3. Combination analgesics versus placeboOur pooled analysis for the effect of combination analgesics on the need for additional pain relief was RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.40, three trials, 242 women, I(2) = 69%). When comparing different drugs within the combination oral analgesics versus placebo comparison we observed subgroup differences (P = 0.05; I² = 65.8%). One trial comparing paracetamol plus codeine versus placebo resulted in fewer women requiring additional pain relief (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82, one trial, 65 women). However, there were no differences in the the number of women requiring additional pain relief when comparing paracetamol plus oxycodone versus placebo, or paracetamol plus propoxyphene (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28, one trial, 96 women and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.69, one trial, 81 women, respectively).Maternal drug effects were more common in combination analgesics group versus placebo (RR 13.18, 95% CI 2.86 to 60.68, three trials, 252 women). 4. Opioid analgesics versus non-opioid analgesicsThe confidence interval for the effect on additional pain relief between opioid and non-opioid drugs was very wide (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.51, one trial, 121 women). Side effects were more common with the use opioids versus non-opioids analgesics (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.69, two trials 241 women). 5. Opioid analgesics versus combination analgesicsThere was no difference in need for additional pain relief in opioid analgesics versus combination analgesics based on one study involving 121 women comparing tramadol and paracetamol plus propoxyphene (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.51). Maternal adverse effects also did not differ between the two groups (RR 6.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 116.79). 6. Non-opioid versus combination analgesicsThe need for additional pain relief was greater in the group of women who received non-opoid analgesics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93, one trial, 192 women) compared with the group of women who received combination analgesics. Secondary outcomes not reported in the included studiesNo data were found on the following secondary outcomes: number of days in hospital post-operatively, re-hospitalisation due to incisional pain, fully breastfeeding on discharge, mixed feeding at discharge, incisional pain at six weeks after caesarean section, maternal post partum depression, effect (negative) on mother and baby interaction and cost of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Eight trials with 962 women were included in the analysis, but only four trials were of high quality. All the trials were small. We carried out subgroup analysis for different drugs within the same group and for high versus low doses of the same drug. However, the relatively few studies (one to two trials) and numbers of women (40 to 136) limits the reliability of these subgroup analyses.Due to limited data available no conclusions can be made regarding the safest and the most effective form of oral analgesia for post-caesarean pain. Further studies are necessary.

Paracetamol/acetaminophen (single administration) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal pain is a common but poorly studied adverse outcome following childbirth. Pain may result from perineal trauma due to bruising, spontaneous tears, surgical incisions (episiotomies), or in association with operative births (ventouse or forceps assisted births).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) systemic drugs used in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register on 6 November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing paracetamol (acetaminophen) in a single dose compared with placebo for women with early postpartum perineal pain. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed each paper for inclusion and extracted data. One review author reviewed the decisions and confirmed calculations for pain relief scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials from the updated search so the results remain unchanged as follows.We have included 10 studies describing two dosages of paracetamol. Of these, five studies (526 women) assessed 500 mg to 650 mg and six studies (841 women) assessed 1000 mg of paracetamol. We chose to use random-effects meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity in dosage used. Studies were from the 1970s to the early 1990s, and there was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias adequately, hence the findings need to be interpreted within this context.More women experienced pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.89, 10 studies, 1279 women). In addition, there were significantly fewer women having additional pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55, eight studies, 1132 women). Both the 500 mg to 650 mg and 1000 mg doses were effective in providing more pain relief than placebo.Maternal and neonatal potential adverse drug effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. Indeed few secondary outcomes were assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More women experienced pain relief, and fewer had additional pain relief, with paracetamol compared with placebo, although potential adverse effects were not assessed and generally the quality of studies was unclear.

Analgesia for relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution after birth

BACKGROUND

Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping after birth pains associated with uterine involution.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of analgesia for relief of after birth pains following vaginal birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010) and the reference lists of trials and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia with placebo or analgesia with no treatment, for the relief of after birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 18 studies (involving 1498 women) in this review. However, only nine of the included studies (with 750 women) reported 24 comparisons of analgesia with other analgesia or placebo and had data that could be included in our meta-analyses. The majority of studies investigated pharmacological analgesics and these were grouped into classes for this review. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were significantly better than placebo at relieving pain from uterine involution as assessed by their summed pain intensity differences (SPID) (mean difference (MD) 4.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.87 to 5.82; three studies, 204 women) and summed pain relief scores (MD 5.94; 95% CI 3.83 to 8.01; three studies, 204 women). NSAIDS were compared with opioids in one small study of 23 women reporting SPID and summed pain relief and found no difference. A larger study of 127 women found NSAIDs to be significantly better than opioids at reducing pain intensity six hours following study intervention (MD -0.70; 95% CI -1.04 to -0.35). Opioids were compared with placebo in three studies that could be included in meta-analyses; one small study of 23 women reporting SPID and summed pain relief and found no difference. One study of 95 women found no difference in pain intensity six hours following the study intervention. A third study of 108 women found significantly more women in the placebo group reported no pain relief than women in the opioid group (risk ratio 0.10; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23). Aspirin was significantly better than paracetamol when pain intensity score was assessed six hours after study intervention (MD 0.85; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.41; one study 48 women) at relieving pain from uterine involution. Paracetamol was not better than placebo when pain intensity was assessed six hours after the study intervention in one study of 48 women.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) including aspirin were better than placebo at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs were better than paracetamol and paracetamol was not better than placebo, though numbers of participants for these comparisons were small. Data for opioids compared with NSAIDs and opioids compared with placebo were conflicting, with some measures showing similar effect and others indicating NSAIDs were better than opioids and opioids were not better than placebo. There were insufficient data to make conclusions regarding the effectiveness of opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution.The median year of publication of included studies was 1981; therefore more research is needed to assess the effectiveness of current pharmacological and non-pharmacological analgesia at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth.