Pain at insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in nulligravida and parous women with and without cesarean section

Pain relief during intrauterine device placement in nulligravid women with both oral ketorolac and an analgesic: a double-blinded randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether the administration of oral ketorolac with an analgesic provides effective pain relief during placement of an intrauterine device (IUD) in nulligravid women.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blinded randomised trial in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Campinas Faculty of Medical Sciences, Campinas, SP, Brazil. We randomised participants who voluntarily agreed to participate to receive either one pill containing ketorolac 20 mg together with one pill containing dipyrone 300 mg, scopolamine 6.5 µg, hyoscyamine 104 µg, and homatropine 1 mg or placebo 60 min before IUD placement. The participants and providers were blinded to the randomisation group. The primary outcome was pain assessment (measured on a 0-10 visual analogue scale) during IUD placement.

RESULTS

We enrolled participants and randomised them 1:1 between November 7, 2023, and January 31, 2024. We analysed 60 women in each group. There were no differences between the groups in the pain score during tenaculum placement, uterine sounding, and IUD placement, and in the overall perception of pain. However, the pain score was significantly lower 10 min after the procedure in women who received the treatment compared with women who received the placebo.

CONCLUSION

Oral ketorolac associated with an analgesic administered 60 min before IUD placement was not significantly better than placebo during tenaculum placement, uterine sounding, and IUD insertion, and did not significantly reduce the overall pain perception. However, this treatment did significantly reduce pain 10 min after the procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (REBEC; in English: The Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials) under number RBR-7phn8yv on November 6, 2023. https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-7phn8yv.

Use of naproxen versus intracervical block for pain control during the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion in young women: a multivariate analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background

To compare the effectiveness of 550 mg naproxen sodium versus 6 mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block in pain lowering at the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) placement in young women.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, 100 women aged 15–24 years were block-randomized to receive either 6 mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block 5 min before the LNG-IUS insertion or 550 mg naproxen 30 min before the procedure. Forty-nine women received 550 mg naproxen and 51 received intracervical block. The primary outcome was pain at LNG-IUS insertion. Secondary outcomes were ease of insertion, insertion failures, and correct IUS positioning. Neither participants nor doctors were blinded. Pain at insertion was assessed by using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

Results

Women randomized to lidocaine intracervical block presented lower mean pain score at insertion, when compared to women who received naproxen (5.4 vs. 7.3, respectively; p < 0.001). Parous women had a 90.1% lower chance of experiencing severe pain (p = 0.004). There was a 49.8% reduction in the chance of severe pain for every 1-cm increase in the hysterometry (p = 0.002). The only complication observed during insertion was vasovagal-like reactions (7%). The insertion was performed without difficulty in 82% of the women. Participants in the intracervical block group presented higher proportion of malpositioned IUS on transvaginal ultrasound examination compared to women in naproxen group. Nevertheless, all the malpositioned IUS were inserted by resident physicians.

Conclusion

Lidocaine intracervical block was found to be more effective than naproxen in reducing LNG-IUS insertion pain.

Trial registration number: RBR-68mmbp, Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, Retrospectively registered (August 4, 2020), URL of trial registry record: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-68mmbp/.

Pain scores at the insertion of the 52 MG levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system among nulligravidas and parous women

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the pain scores at the insertion of the 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) among nulligravidas, parous women with previous vaginal delivery and parous women with elective caesarean-delivery without any previous labour or cervix dilation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present research is a prospective, single-cohort study that included 413 women aged 15-49 years who opted for LNG-IUS placement for contraception or treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Women who participated in the present study were not submitted to any pharmacological pain-relieving intervention to perform the procedure. Pain at insertion was evaluated by using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Pain was classified as absent (0), mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). The women were divided as: (1) nulligravidas, (2) parous women with a previous vaginal delivery, or (3) parous women with elective caesarean-delivery without any previous labour or cervix dilation.

RESULTS

Nulligravidas women presented a higher mean pain score, when compared to women with elective caesarean-delivery and women with previous vaginal delivery (6.6 ± 2.0 vs 5.5 ± 2.1 and 3.9 ± 2.4, respectively; p < 0.001). Nulligravidas and women with elective caesarean-delivery were more likely to have pain classified as moderate or severe (in relation to absent or mild) than women with previous vaginal delivery (p < 0.001). Multiple Linear Regression Analysis demonstrated that 29.5% of all variability of the pain score was explained by two predictor/independent variables: nulligravidas or women with elective caesarean and difficulty at IUD insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with previous vaginal delivery had lower pain scores at LNG-IUS insertion when compared to nulligravidas and women with elective caesarean-delivery without any previous labour.

Ex-vivo forces associated with intrauterine device placement and perforation: a biomechanical evaluation of hysterectomy specimens

Background

This biomechanical analysis of hysterectomy specimens assesses the forces associated with intrauterine device placement. These include compressive forces required to cause uterine perforation with two commonly available commercial intrauterine device placement instruments and a metal uterine sound.

Methods

We obtained hysterectomy specimens at a single academic center. All specimens resulted from excision for benign conditions in premenopausal women by any operative method. Within one hour of excision, we stabilized uterine specimens in an apparatus specifically designed for this analysis. A single, experienced clinician performed all experimental maneuvers and measured forces with a Wagner FDIX-25 force gauge. The investigator applied traction on a tenaculum to approximate force used during an intrauterine device placement. The maximum compressive force to the uterine fundus was determined by using manufacturers’ placement instruments for two commercially available products and a metal sound.

Results

Sixteen individuals provided hysterectomy specimens. No complete perforations occurred while using loaded intrauterine devices; in a single observation the LNG IUS entered the myometrium. The plastic intrauterine device placement rod bowed in all attempts and did not perforate the uterine serosa at the fundus. A metal uterine sound created a complete perforation in all specimens (p < .001). The lowest mean maximum force generated occurred with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system placement instrument 12.3 N (SD ± 3.8 N), followed by the copper T380A intrauterine device placement instrument 14.1 N (SD ± 4.0 N), and highest for the metal sound 17.9 N (SD ± 7.6 N) (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In this ex-vivo model, metal uterine sounds caused complete perforation and intrauterine device placement instruments did not.

This study received Institutional Review Board (IRB0059096) approval.

Vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To systematically and meta-analytically investigate the efficacy and safety of vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo in pain relief during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were screened till 1 October 2020. Only randomised placebo-controlled studies were included and assessed for risk of bias. Main outcomes included IUD insertion related pain, patient satisfaction, provider ease of IUD insertion, and side effects. Pooled outcomes were summarised as standardised mean difference (SMD), weighted mean difference (WMD), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS

Five studies were included, comprising 862 patients; equally 431 patients received vaginal dinoprostone and placebo. All studies showed an overall low risk of bias. When compared to placebo, dinoprostone significantly correlated with decreased pain at tenaculum placement (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.43, -0.16], p = 0.01), decreased pain at uterine sounding (SMD = -0.88, 95% CI [-1.54, -0.22], p = 0.009), decreased pain at IUD insertion (SMD = -1.18, 95% CI [-1.74, -0.61], p < 0.001), decreased need for additional analgesia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.22, 0.53], p < 0.001), increased patient satisfaction (SMD = 1.41, 95% CI [0.62, 2.20], p < 0.001), and increased provider ease of IUD insertion (SMD = -1.17, 95% CI [-1.62, -0.73], p < 0.001). Fever was statistically significantly higher in dinoprostone versus placebo group (RR = 3.73, 95% CI [1.47, 9.44], p = 0.006). All other side effects-including nausea, vomiting, shivering, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, vasovagal attack, uterine perforation, and postprocedural bleeding-did not substantially differ between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first ever meta-analysis advocates that dinoprostone compared with placebo is safe, effective, and yields favourable analgesic outcomes during IUD insertion.

Predictors of severe pain during insertion of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system among nulligravid women

OBJECTIVE

To identify sociodemographic and clinical variables associated with severe pain with levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system (IUS) placement among nulligravid women.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that evaluated intracervical anesthesia before IUS insertion. We assessed factors associated with severe pain (visual analog scale pain score ≥7) immediately after insertion using bivariate and multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 137/300 (45.7%) subjects reported severe pain. In multiple regression analysis, only intracervical anesthesia [RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.80] and a history of dysmenorrhea [RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08-1.72)] were associated with severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Among nulligravid women, a history of dysmenorrhea increases, and intracervical block decreases severe pain during levonorgestrel IUS insertion.

IMPLICATIONS

Dysmenorrhea increases the risk of severe pain at levonorgestrel intrauterine system insertion, while receiving an intracervical lidocaine block decreases this risk. This information can be useful for counseling women prior to device placement and for selecting candidates who may particularly benefit from interventions to reduce pain.

Indications and reasons for discontinuing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS)

Abstract Objectives: to identify the main indications and reasons for discontinuing the use of the Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS). Methods: a cross-sectional study was carried out from medical records of 327 women who used the LNG-IUS 52mg between January 2011 and December 2016 at a public hospital in the Northeast of Brazil. Results: the main indications for the use of the LNG-IUS were: contraception (32.7%), myoma/metrorrhagia (28.7%) and endometriosis/pelvic pain (22.3%). Of the 327 women, 68 (20.8%) had discontinued using the device. The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were: expulsion (9.2%), LNG-IUS expiration (3.7%), bleeding (2.4%) and pain (1.5%). Most patients had no difficulty in the insertion and did not require anesthesia/sedation. Among the 30 women who expelled the device, 17 (56.7%) had used it for metrorrhagia and myoma, 8 (26.7%) for contraception, and 5 (16.6%) for endometriosis/pelvic pain. Conclusions: the LNG-IUS is a well-accepted contraceptive method, with therapeutic applications for some gynecological conditions and a low expulsion rate.

Benefits of vaginal dinoprostone administration prior to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion in women delivered only by elective cesarean section: a randomized double-blinded clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed at investigating the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone 3 mg vaginally prior to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) insertion in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial at family planning clinic of Cairo University hospitals from August 2019 to January 2020. We included 200 women aged ≥ 18 years who previously delivered by elective CD willing to receive LNG-IUS. Women were randomly assigned with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive 3 mg vaginal dinoprostone or placebo tablets two hours before LNG-IUS insertion. Our main outcomes were patient-reported pain during insertion and 30 min post-procedure, ease of insertion, satisfaction, duration of insertion, and different side effects.

RESULTS

Patient-perceived pain during LNG-IUS insertion was significantly reduced in dinoprostone compared to placebo (4.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.4 ± 1.3; p < 0.001). Dinoprostone reduced pain scores 30 min post-procedure compared to placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant (3.5 ± 1.1 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p = 0.25). Satisfaction score was higher in dinoprostone compared to placebo (7.9 ± 1.0 vs 5.9 ± 0.8; p < 0.001). The insertion was significantly easier and shorter in dinoprostone than placebo (3.9 ± 1.1 vs 5.9 ± 1.1; p < 0.001) and (5.6 ± 0.9 vs 7.2 ± 0.8; p < 0.001), respectively. Adverse events were not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Dinoprostone administration 2 h before LNG-IUS insertion in women delivered by elective CD effectively reduced pain during insertion and 30 min post-procedure. Women received dinoprostone had easier and shorter insertion and were more satisfied with tolerable side effects.

Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain during the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives is a barrier to using these methods, especially for nulligravidas. An intracervical block may be easier and more reproducible than a paracervical block; however, this intervention has not been evaluated in nulligravid women to reduce pain with intrauterine contraceptive insertion.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block reduces pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas; and, in addition, to assess whether the intracervical block has any effect on the ease of device insertion and on the overall experience with the procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, nulligravidas were block-randomized to 1 of 3 arms prior to 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: 3.6-mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block, sham injection (intracervical dry-needling), or no intervention. The primary outcome was pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. Secondary outcomes were pain at tenaculum placement, ease of insertion (assessed by healthcare providers), and the overall experience with the procedure (pain with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion compared with expectations, discomfort level, wish to undergo another device insertion in the future, and recommendation of the procedure to others). Participants' pain was measured with a 10-cm visual analogue scale and a 5-point Faces Pain Scale. Pain was summarized into categories (none, mild, moderate, severe) and also analyzed as a continuous variable (mean and 95% confidence interval). Our sample size had 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect a 15% difference in pain score measured by visual analogue scale (mean [standard deviation] visual analogue scale score = 5.9 [2.0] cm) and an absolute difference of 20% in the proportion of women reporting severe pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among groups. We used a χ² test and a mixed-effects linear regression model. We calculated the number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion.

RESULTS

A total of 302 women were randomized (99 to the intracervical block, 101 to the intracervical sham, and 102 to no intervention), and 300 had a successful device insertion. The intracervical block group had fewer women reporting severe pain than the other groups, both at tenaculum placement (intracervical block: 2% vs sham: 30.2% vs no intervention: 15.2%, P < .0001) and at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion (intracervical block: 26.5% vs sham: 59.4% vs no intervention: 50.5%, P < .0001). The mean (95% confidence interval) pain score reported at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was lower in the intracervical block group than in the other groups (intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs sham: 6.6 [6.2-7.0], P < .0001; intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs no intervention: 5.8 [5.3-6.4], P < .0001). Women from the intracervical block group reported less pain than expected (P < .0001), rated the insertion as less uncomfortable (P < .0001), and were more willing to undergo another device insertion in the future (P < .01) than women in the other groups. The ease of insertion were similar among groups. The number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was 2 and 4, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block decreased pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas. It also provided a better overall experience during the procedure.

Interventions for the prevention of pain associated with the placement of intrauterine contraceptives: An updated review

A 2013 review found no evidence to support the routine use of pain relief for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) placement; however, fear of pain with placement continues to be a barrier to use for some women. This narrative review set out to identify (1) new evidence that may support routine use of pain management strategies for IUC placement; (2) procedure‐related approaches that may have a positive impact on the pain experience; and (3) factors that may help healthcare professionals identify women at increased risk of pain with IUC placement. A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane library databases revealed 550 citations, from which we identified 43 new and pertinent studies for review. Thirteen randomized clinical trials, published since 2012, described reductions in placement‐related pain with administration of oral and local analgesia (oral ketorolac, local analgesia with different lidocaine formulations) and cervical priming when compared with placebo or controls. Four studies suggested that ultrasound guidance, balloon dilation, and a modified placement device may help to minimize the pain experienced with IUC placement. Eight publications suggested that previous cesarean delivery, timing of insertion relative to menstruation, dysmenorrhea, expected pain, baseline anxiety, and size of insertion tube may affect the pain experienced with IUC placement. Oral and local analgesia and cervical priming can be effective in minimizing IUC placement‐related pain when compared with placebo, but routine use remains subject for debate. Predictive factors may help healthcare professionals to identify women at risk of experiencing pain. Targeted use of effective strategies in these women may be a useful approach while research continues in this area.

A prospective, randomized study evaluating the pain felt during intrauterine device insertion by the direct technique vs conventional technique

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of the direct insertion technique compared to the conventional insertion technique in reducing the pain experienced during placement of an intrauterine device (IUD).

METHODS

A prospective, controlled, randomized, single-blind trial was conducted in women eligible for IUD insertion. Participants were randomized into two groups: "conventional placement" and "direct placement". The primary endpoint was the percentage of women reporting pain scored as ≥ 4 on the Numerical Verbal Rating Scale (NVRS) at IUD release. Secondary endpoints comprised the number of immediate incidents (insertion failure, vasovagal reaction, and IUD expulsion), the correct positioning of the IUD, checked by ultrasound, the occurrence of incidents within the week following IUD insertion, and the operators' evaluation of the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were enrolled. During IUD insertion, 27 women (45.8%) reported an NVRS score ≥ 4, 32.1% in the "direct placement" group and 58.1% in the "conventional placement" group (p = 0.07). The median NVRS pain scores in the "direct placement" and "classic placement" groups were 2 and 4, respectively (p = 0.01). No statistically significant between-group differences were found with regard to the secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSION

Use of the direct technique reduced the pain experienced during IUD placement. We observed a trend towards a decreased proportion of patients reporting an NVRS pain score ≥ 4 at IUD release with use of the direct technique and the median pain intensity scored on the NVRS was significantly lower in this group. The two techniques did not differ with respect to complications.

Clarification of the role of the Jaydess(Skyla) LNG- IUS 13.5mg and Kyleena LNG-IUS 19.5mg as intrauterine contraceptive systems

INTRODUCTION

Jaydess/Skyla and Kyleena are 'low dose' levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine systems(LNG-IUS). They differ from Mirena and other similar LNG-IUSs in terms of pharmacological properties and physical dimensions. There are currently no defined guidelines to decide when to use Jaydess or Kyleena or Mirena. Areas covered: MEDLINE, POPLINE, PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched using the terms 'Jaydess', 'Skyla', LNG-IUS 13.5mg and 'Kyleena' LNG-IUS 19.5mg. Only clinical research articles as opposed to generalised reviews and opinion papers on the newer LNG-IUSs were considered for review. There were 10 clinical research articles and 11 clinical research abstracts relating to Jaydess/Skyla(LNG-IUS13.5mg) and Kyleena(LNG-IUS 19.5mg). All the studies were sponsored by the manufacturer. There were no independent clinical research studies. Expert commentary: The clinical research information from studies on Jaydess/Skyla and Kyleena does not adequately inform the clinician when and where these IUSs should be used in preference to other LNG-containing IUSs. The terminology used for describing the new low dose LNG-IUSs is inconsistent. The clinical differences between Jaydess, Kyleena and Mirena and the clinical differences in parity of subjects using Jaydess or Kyleena is used to generate an algorithm for helping clinicians choose between Mirena and Jaydess/Skyla or Kyleena.

Insertion of intrauterine devices after cesarean section: a systematic review update

Background

Women who undergo a cesarean section (CS) are in a unique position to receive the intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD). They may also want to use the IUD as a long-acting reversible contraceptive method provided the IUD is safe and effective in the presence of a CS scar.

Search strategy

We researched and reviewed the MEDLINE, POPLINE, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from January 1968 to June 2015.

Selection criteria

Eligible studies reported event rates or practical problems relating to IUD usage in post-placental or interval insertion (>90 days) after CS. Studies with ≥20 subjects were included.

Data collection and analysis

Analysis of eligible data collected from the search followed the PRISMA guidelines.

Main results

Twelve eligible studies of post-placental IUD insertion after CS included four randomized controlled trials of post-placental versus delayed insertion. Women randomized to delayed insertion were less likely to receive a device. Six studies examined the problem of missing IUD threads at follow-up with only 30%–60% presence of strings observed.

Conclusion

The IUD is a long-acting reversible contraceptive method that is suitable for use in all women undergoing CS. The problems of device expulsion, missing threads at follow-up, and the tendency of increased puerperal bleeding need to be solved. Solutions are proposed.

Barriers and myths that limit the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: a survey of Brazilian gynaecologists

OBJECTIVE

To understand the extent to which barriers and misperceptions about intrauterine contraception (IUC) remain among Brazilian gynaecologists, particularly for nulliparous women.

METHODS

An online survey was developed to assess Brazilian gynaecologists' knowledge and attitudes towards IUC. Data collected included demographic and professional data, main barriers when considering IUC for women in general and/or nulliparous women, attitudes towards inclusion of IUC in contraceptive counselling, and opinions on what could increase IUC prescription for nulliparous women. A question regarding knowledge about WHO medical eligibility criteria (WHO MEC) was also included in the survey.

RESULTS

101 gynaecologists completed the survey. The insertion rate in nulliparous women was 79.2%. Brazilian gynaecologists were more likely to consider IUC in counselling or provide it on request for parous than for nulliparous women (p<0.05) and perceived more complications in nulliparous women. 74.2% of gynaecologists recognised a higher risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)/infertility associated with IUC use in nulliparous women than in parous women. Difficult and painful insertion were also relevant for 83.2% and 77.3% of the gynaecologists, respectively. Respondents showed a high level of awareness of the WHO MEC classification.

CONCLUSIONS

The three most commonly reported barriers to considering IUC as a contraceptive option for nulliparous woman were concerns about PID and difficult or painful insertion. The challenge is to ensure that gynaecologists understand the evidence and do not disregard IUC as a potential option for nulliparous women.

Canadian Contraception Consensus (Part 3 of 4): Chapter 7--Intrauterine Contraception

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for health care providers on the use of contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy and on the promotion of healthy sexuality.

OUTCOMES

Overall efficacy of cited contraceptive methods, assessing reduction in pregnancy rate, safety, ease of use, and side effects; the effect of cited contraceptive methods on sexual health and general well-being; and the relative cost and availability of cited contraceptive methods in Canada.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of Medline and The Cochrane Database from January 1994 to January 2015 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., contraception, sexuality, sexual health) and key words (e.g., contraception, family planning, hormonal contraception, emergency contraception). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies published in English from January 1994 to January 2015. Searches were updated on a regular basis in incorporated in the guideline to June 2015. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALUES

The quality of the evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). CHAPTER 7: INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTION:

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

1. Intrauterine contraceptives are as effective as permanent contraception methods. (II-2) 2. The use of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg by patients taking tamoxifen is not associated with recurrence of breast cancer. (I) 3. Intrauterine contraceptives have a number of noncontraceptive benefits. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg significantly decreases menstrual blood loss (I) and dysmenorrhea. (II-2) Both the copper intrauterine device and the LNG-IUS significantly decrease the risk of endometrial cancer. (II-2) 4. The risk of uterine perforation decreases with inserter experience but is higher in postpartum and breastfeeding women. (II-2) 5. The risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is increased slightly in the first month after intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion, but the absolute risk is low. Exposure to sexually transmitted infections and not the IUC itself is responsible for PID occurring after the first month of use. (II-2) 6. Nulliparity is not associated with an increased risk of intrauterine contraceptive expulsion. (II-2) 7. Ectopic pregnancy with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) is rare, but when a pregnancy occurs with an IUC in situ, it is an ectopic pregnancy in 15% to 50% of the cases. (II-2) 8. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, early IUC removal improves outcomes but does not entirely eliminate risks. (II-2) 9. Intrauterine contraceptives do not increase the risk of infertility. (II-2) 10. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher continuation rate compared with insertion at 6 weeks postpartum. (I) 11. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC; 10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher risk of expulsion. (I) The benefit of inserting an IUC immediately postpartum or post-Caesarean section outweighs the disadvantages of increased risk of perforation and expulsion. (II-C) 12. Insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive in breastfeeding women is associated with a higher risk of uterine perforation in the first postpartum year. (II-2) 13. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) post-abortion significantly reduces the risk of repeat abortion (II-2) and increases IUC continuation rates at 6 months. (I) 14. Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive insertion does not significantly reduce postinsertion pelvic infection. (I) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Health care professionals should be careful not to restrict access to intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) owing to theoretical or unproven risks. (III-A) Health care professionals should offer IUCs as a first-line method of contraception to both nulliparous and multiparous women. (II-2A) 2. In women seeking intrauterine contraception (IUC) and presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding and/or dysmenorrhea, health care professionals should consider the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system 52 mg over other IUCs. (I-A) 3. Patients with breast cancer taking tamoxifen may consider a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system 52 mg after consultation with their oncologist. (I-A) 4. Women requesting a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or a copper-intrauterine device should be counseled regarding changes in bleeding patterns, sexually transmitted infection risk, and duration of use. (III-A) 5. A health care professional should be reasonably certain that the woman is not pregnant prior to inserting an intrauterine contraceptive at any time during the menstrual cycle. (III-A) 6. Health care providers should consider inserting an intrauterine contraceptive immediately after an induced abortion rather than waiting for an interval insertion. (I-B) 7. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy should be excluded as arly as possible. (II-2A) Once an ectopic pregnancy has been excluded, the IUC should be removed without an invasive procedure. The IUC may be removed at the time of a surgical termination. (II-2B) 8. In the case of pelvic inflammatory disease, it is not necessary to remove the intrauterine contraceptive unless there is no clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate antibiotic treatment. (II-2B) 9. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion is not indicated. (I-B) Health care providers should perform sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing in women at high risk of STI at the time of IUC insertion. If the test is positive for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea, the woman should be appropriately treated postinsertion and the IUC can remain in situ. (II-2B) 10. Unscheduled bleeding in intrauterine contraception users, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, should be investigated to rule out infection, pregnancy, gynecological pathology, expulsion or malposition. (III-A)

Five-year follow-up of two types of contraceptive device fitted during elective cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

To present follow-up data for patients fitted with a copper intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) or the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (IUS) during cesarean delivery.

METHODS

Between March 2006 and December 2011, a prospective study was undertaken of women who were scheduled to have a repeat cesarean for a singleton pregnancy and had chosen to undergo intraoperative fitting of an IUCD or the IUS. Participants were followed up for up to 5 years using transvaginal ultrasonography, clinical evaluation, and a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among 143 participants, 63 requested the IUCD and 80 the IUS. Misalignment was more common at 6 weeks with the IUS (37 [46.3%] patients) than with the IUCD (22 [34.9%]; P=0.06). Spontaneous expulsion occurred in the IUCD group only (4 [6.3%] patients). No pregnancies were reported in the IUS group, whereas 4 (6.3%) women with the IUCD became pregnant.

CONCLUSION

Although misalignment of an IUCD or the IUS is fairly common after intraoperative insertion, the contraceptive performance and menstrual pattern are not affected. Therefore, there is no need to remove or replace a misaligned IUCD or IUS.

A comparison of the expected and actual pain experienced by women during insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device

OBJECTIVE

To compare the expected and actual pain experienced with the insertion of intrauterine contraception in women, and to determine whether either of these are related to their personal circumstances, or affected their satisfaction with the procedure.

DESIGN

A convenience sample of 89 women aged 15-50 years attending a sexual health clinic for same day intrauterine contraception insertion were given a questionnaire that they completed following the procedure. The women were asked to rate their expectation of pain prior to insertion and to rate the actual pain they experienced immediately after insertion, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being severe pain. Information on the women's circumstances and their level of satisfaction with the procedure was also obtained.

RESULTS

Overall, the median actual pain experienced by women during insertion (4) was significantly lower than the expected pain median (6) (P<0.001). For those women who had not had a previous vaginal delivery, actual pain was significantly higher compared with women who had had a previous vaginal delivery (median [interquartile range]: 6 [3.5-7.5] and 3 [1-5], P<0.001, respectively), but there was no significant difference between expected and actual pain experiences. In women who had a previous vaginal delivery, actual pain was much lower than expected (P<0.001). Neither actual nor expected pain experiences were linked to any other sociodemographic reproductive health or service use factors.

CONCLUSION

All women had a high expectation of pain prior to IUD insertion, but for those who had had a previous vaginal delivery, this was significantly greater than that actually experienced. Satisfaction levels overall were high. Counseling of women should take into account their expected pain prior to IUD insertion and consideration should be given to alternative and additional methods of pain relief in women who have not had a previous vaginal delivery.

Predicting painful or difficult intrauterine device insertion in nulligravid women

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship of preinsertion vaginal ultrasound assessment and menstrual and gynecologic history as predictors of difficult or painful intrauterine device insertion in nulligravid women.

METHODS

Nulligravid women seeking contraception were invited to participate in this nonrandomized study and given the choice between the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or a copper-releasing intrauterine device. All 165 enrolled women were interviewed and a pelvic examination, including vaginal ultrasonography, was performed before insertion. Insertion difficulties and pain intensity were recorded and assessed against uterine measurements and background characteristics.

RESULTS

Most insertions were assessed as easy (n=144 [89.4%]) and only two (1.2%) failed. Most women had uterine measurements smaller than the studied devices. Odds for difficulties at insertion decreased with every increasing millimeter in total uterine length (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.96, P=.006) and cervical length (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P=.02) and similarly with every decreasing degree of (straighter) flexion angle (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, P=.005). No absolute threshold measurements could be determined. Still, the majority of insertions in small and flexed uteri were uneventful. Severe insertion pain was common (n=94 [58.4%]). Severe dysmenorrhea was the only predictor of insertion pain (OR 8.16 95% CI 2.56-26.02, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonographic evaluation does not give additional information compared with clinical pelvic examination and sound measure. Although smaller uterine length measurements and steeper flexion angle more often predicted difficulties, the majority of insertions were uneventful in women with small measures. Dysmenorrhea was the only predictor of pain.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01685164.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.