Intrauterine lidocaine infusion for pain management during outpatient transcervical tubal sterilization: a randomized controlled trial

Local anaesthesia for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types and routes of administration of local anaesthetic for pain control during and after office hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until October 2019, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials investigating the use of a local anaesthetic compared to a control, for pain relief in women undergoing diagnostic or operative office hysteroscopy. Average pain scores and data regarding side-effects, feasibility, complications, acceptability and satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 612 citations. A total of 37 studies were included for systematic review, of which data from 20 studies were used for meta-analysis. Local anaesthesia was associated with significantly reduced pain during (SMD -0.57, 95 % CI -0.79 to -0.34) and after (SMD -0.30, 95 % CI -0.54 to -0.06) office hysteroscopy but did not reduce vasovagal episodes (OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.50-1.09). A reduction in intra-procedural pain was observed regardless of type or route of administration. Local anaesthesia did not significantly reduce the risk of procedural failure (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.47-1.11). Insufficient data regarding complications, acceptability and satisfaction were available for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Local anaesthesia via any route of genital tract administration, should be considered when undertaking office diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy to reduce pain during and after the procedure. Further research is needed to understand whether the pain control benefits of local anaesthesia remain apparent with vaginoscopic approaches to office hysteroscopy that avoid genital tract instrumentation.

Pain management during diagnostic office hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women: a randomized study

Objective: This study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of lidocaine versus tramadol versus placebo in reducing the pain of diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy (OH) in postmenopausal women.Materials and methods: This randomized double-blinded study included 156 menopausal women who received intrauterine lidocaine infusion or oral tramadol (50 mg) or placebo before diagnostic OH (52 women/group). Primary outcome was pain severity during the procedure using a 10-cm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes were pain scores 10 and 30 min post procedure, satisfaction level, and ease of cervical entry.Results: Lidocaine had lower pain scores compared to placebo during and 10 min after the procedure (p < 0.001). Tramadol had lower pain scores than placebo during the procedure (p = 0.04), 10 min after the procedure (p = 0.03), and 30 min after the procedure (p = 0.04). Both lidocaine and tramadol resulted in an easier procedure than placebo (p < 0.001 and p = 0.04, respectively). Lidocaine had an easier cervical entry compared to tramadol (p = 0.004). Satisfaction scores in the lidocaine and tramadol groups were significantly higher than in the placebo group (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Lidocaine and tramadol were effective in reducing postmenopausal women-reported pain during and after diagnostic OH. However, lidocaine was better than tramadol in facilitating hysteroscope passage through the cervical canal and the reduction in pain levels with lidocaine was clinically relevant.Trial registration number: NCT03701984.

A Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Essure® Procedural Placement Success Rates on First Attempt

Background: The Essure® (Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Leverkusen, Germany) female sterilization procedure entails using a hysteroscope to guide a microinsert into the Fallopian tube openings. Failed placement can lead to patient dissatisfaction, repeat procedures, unintended or ectopic pregnancy, perforation of internal organs, or need for subsequent medical interventions. Additional interventions increase women's health risks, and costs for patients and the health care industry. Demonstrated successful placement rates are 63%-100%. To date, there have not been any systematic analyses of variables associated with placement rates. Objectives: The aims of this review were: (1) to estimate the average rate of successful bilateral Essure microinsert placement on first attempt; and (2) to identify variables associated with successful placement. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted on 64 published studies and 19 variables. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, all published studies between November 2001 and February 2015 were reviewed. The studies were taken from from PubMed and Google Scholar, and by using the the "snowball" method that reported variables associated with successful bilateral Essure placement rates. Results: The weighted average rate of successful bilateral microinsert placement on first attempt was 92% (0.92 [95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.931]). Variables associated with successful placements were: (1) newer device models; (2) higher body mass index; and (3) a higher percent of patients who received local anesthesia. Conclusions: The data gathered for this review indicate that the highest bilateral success rates may be obtained by utilizing the newest Essure device model with local anesthesia in heavier patients. More standardized data reporting in published Essure studies is recommended. (J GYNECOL SURG 31:308).

Intrauterine infusion of lidocaine does not reduce pain scores during IUD insertion

BACKGROUND

Potential pain with IUD insertion is a concern for women. Studies have found that systemic and local cervical therapies do not reduce pain scores. Since intrauterine infusion of lidocaine may reduce pain with endometrial aspiration, in this pilot study, we tested whether such infusion through an inexpensive endometrial aspirator could reduce IUD insertion pain scores with IUD insertion.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo control pilot study of 40 women undergoing IUD insertion, pain scores of women receiving 1.2 mL 2% lidocaine versus normal saline (1:1) infused 3 min prior to IUD insertion were measured using a 0-9-point scale.

RESULTS

Pain at tenaculum placement was similar between groups. There was no difference in mean pain scores during IUD insertion of women infused with lidocaine (2.95) versus normal saline (3.75), p=.37. Considerable variation in pain scores was noted; 46% of subjects had pain scores ≤2 while 33% had pain scores ≥5.

CONCLUSION

Use of 2% lidocaine administered through an endometrial aspirator did not significantly reduce IUD insertion pain scores in this pilot study.

Intrauterine anesthesia for gynecologic procedures: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of intrauterine local anesthesia in reducing pain associated with outpatient gynecologic procedures.

DATA SOURCES

We searched online databases PubMed or MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov and hand-searched reference lists from reviews evaluating pain-control methods for gynecologic office procedures. We identified randomized controlled trials using intrauterine local anesthetic in gynecologic procedures.

METHODS

Titles and abstracts were screened for 1,236 articles. We identified 45 potential articles for inclusion. We excluded 22 of these studies because: 1) they were not randomized controlled trials; 2) they did not describe a quantifiable dose of medication used in the study; 3) they did not investigate an intrauterine anesthetic; 4) they did not study a potentially awake, outpatient procedure; and 5) they did not clearly report results or represented duplicate publication. Twenty-three articles were ultimately included for review.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two authors independently reviewed full search results and assessed eligibility for inclusion and independently abstracted data from all articles that met criteria for inclusion. Disagreements regarding eligibility or abstraction data were adjudicated by a third independent person. Our primary end point was the reported effect of intrauterine local anesthesia on patient-reported pain scores. As a result of heterogeneity in study methods, outcome measures, and reporting of outcomes, results could not be combined in a meta-analysis. Good evidence supports use of intrauterine anesthesia in endometrial biopsy and curettage, because five good-quality studies reported reduced pain scores, whereas only one good-quality study reported negative results. We found moderate evidence to support intrauterine anesthesia in hysteroscopy, because one good-quality study and two fair or poor quality studies reported reduced pain scores, whereas two good-quality studies had negative results. Good evidence suggests that intrauterine anesthesia is not effective in hysterosalpingography; three good-quality studies reported that pain scores were not reduced, and no good quality studies showed a beneficial effect in that procedure. Evidence was insufficient concerning first-trimester abortion, saline-infusion ultrasonogram, tubal sterilization, and intrauterine device insertion.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine local anesthesia can reduce pain in several gynecologic procedures including endometrial biopsy, curettage, and hysteroscopy and may be effective in other procedures as well.