Intrauterine lidocaine for pain control during laminaria insertion: a randomized controlled trial

Pain Management in Abortion Care

Both medication and procedural abortion are associated with pain. The experiences of pain depend on both physical and emotional factors. Several pain management options are available for abortion, depending on abortion type, clinical setting, and patient considerations, and a comprehensive approach is necessary to optimize pain management.

A Comparison of Paracervical Block Volumes Before Osmotic Dilator Placement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a 12-mL paracervical block is noninferior to a 20-mL block in reducing pain with osmotic dilator insertion.

METHODS

In this single-blinded noninferiority trial, we randomized individuals undergoing insertion of osmotic dilators before second-trimester abortion to receive either a 12-mL or 20-mL 1% lidocaine paracervical block. The primary outcome was pain immediately after insertion of osmotic dilators. Prespecified secondary outcomes included pain with paracervical block administration, overall pain, and side effects, with 88 participants being required for a noninferiority margin of 15 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale assuming an SD of 28. We analyzed data using Wilcoxon rank sum, χ2, and t tests and performed analysis of variance to account for repeated measures. Secondary analysis included multivariable regression to explore potential confounders.

RESULTS

From January 2018 to October 2020, of 232 eligible individuals, 174 were approached and 96 randomized (48 participants to each group); 91 were available for analysis (45: 12 mL, 46: 20 mL). Group demographics were similar, with a mean gestation of 21 weeks and four osmotic dilators placed. The 12-mL paracervical block was noninferior to the 20-mL paracervical block for pain with osmotic dilator insertion with a difference in means of -1.36 (95% CI -12.56 to 9.85) favoring 12 mL. Median pain scores after dilator placement were 47 mm (interquartile range 22-68) and 50 mm (interquartile range 27-67) in 12-mL compared with 20-mL paracervical block, respectively (P=.81). No difference was seen in median pain at baseline, with paracervical block administration, postprocedure or with overall pain or experience. At least one lidocaine-related side effect occurred in 4% of participants in the 12-mL group compared with 13% for those receiving 20 mL (P=.15), with metallic taste, ringing in ears, and lightheadedness being most common.

CONCLUSION

A 12-mL paracervical block is noninferior to a 20-mL block for pain reduction with osmotic dilator insertion.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03356145.

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial evaluating pain and opioid use after dilator placement for second-trimester abortion

OBJECTIVES

To compare pain levels and medication needs after placement of laminaria vs Dilapan-S, and after dilation and evacuation (D&E).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a single-blinded randomized control trial of patients undergoing D&E at 15 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks gestation, randomizing to cervical preparation with laminaria or Dilapan-S. We compared pain levels and medication usage following dilator placement (5 minutes; 2, 4, and 8 hours; the following morning) and D&E (1, 4, 24, and 48 hours). Our primary outcome was median change from baseline pain, and secondary outcomes included maximum pain timing and overall narcotic use. We compared baseline characteristics, median pain increases and quantities of narcotics used.

RESULTS

We analyzed 67 participants with laminaria (n = 34) and Dilapan-S (n = 33). More Dilapan-S users had a prior vaginal delivery (n = 20, 60.6%) than laminaria users (n = 11, 32.4%), p = 0.02. Maximum median pain was not statistically different (Laminaria: +3.5 (interquartile range [IQR] +0.5, +6.5); Dilapan-S: +3 (IQR +1, +5); p = 0.42. Thirty-seven (63.8%) participants reported higher levels of pain following dilator placement than D&E. Overall, 26 (42.6%) participants used narcotics during their abortion episode, with no difference in median number of tablets between laminaria (2, range 1-8) and Dilapan-S (4.5, range 1-15) participants (p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Median pain increase did not differ in participants receiving laminaria or Dilapan-S for cervical preparation prior to D&E. The majority of patients will use a small amount of narcotics if available.

IMPLICATIONS

The lack of difference in pain between laminaria and Dilapan-S enhances the applicability of pain intervention research across dilator types. With over half of participants using a small amount of narcotics during their D&E episode, pain management should be individualized to patient needs.

Oral sedation for pain with cervical dilator placement: a randomized controlled trial

Objective

Assess oral sedation versus placebo for pain control with cervical dilator placement.

Study design

We randomized participants presenting for dilation and evacuation to lorazepam 1 mg/oxycodone 5 mg or placebo 45 min before cervical dilator placement. Our primary outcome was median visual analog scale (VAS) pain score after dilator placement using a 100-mm VAS. We used our outcome data to calculate median pain score changes from baseline to better reflect pain score differences between study groups. Planned sample size was 30 participants per group, for a total of 60.

Results

We randomized 27 participants; 9 received sedation and 11 placebo. Median pain score increase from baseline to last dilator placement was 20 [interquartile range (IQR) 8–29] and 31 (IQR 15–81) in the oral sedation and placebo groups, p = .16.

Conclusion

We were unable to enroll our desired sample size, and our sample is underpowered to make any conclusions. Our results suggest that oral sedation may provide some benefit for pain relief with dilator insertion and indicate that further research might be worthwhile especially in settings that do not routinely provide these analgesics.

Implications

We had difficulty with study recruitment because many patients desired oral sedation for pain management for cervical dilator placement and declined randomization. Randomized trials of pain management with a placebo arm may find recruitment challenging especially if default clinical care already includes a pain management option that patients would have to opt out of.

Opioid prescription for pain after osmotic dilator placement in abortion care: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the overnight maximum pain scores after osmotic dilator placement prior to a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure in participants assigned to a prescription for ibuprofen alone or to ibuprofen plus oxycodone.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a nonblinded pragmatic, randomized controlled trial to evaluate pain management among women undergoing osmotic dilator placement prior to D&E. We randomly assigned 70 participants at 12 weeks 6 days to 23 weeks 6 days gestation to receive a prescription for ibuprofen alone, or ibuprofen plus oxycodone. We assessed pain using a numeric rating scale (NRS; scale 0-10) at the following time points: Baseline, dilator placement, 2 and 6 hours, and preoperatively, where we also asked participants their maximum pain score. The primary outcome was mean individual NRS pain score change from baseline to maximum pain score.

RESULTS

Maximum mean pain score (change from baseline) was 4.7 ± 2.9 in the ibuprofen group, and 6.5 ± 2.5 in the ibuprofen plus oxycodone group (p < 0.01). Participants in both groups reported highest NRS pain scores 2 hours after dilator placement, 3.9 ± 2.5 and 5.3 ± 2.6 respectively (p = 0.02). Average ibuprofen use in both arms was similar, and 81% of participants used at least 1 dose of ibuprofen after dilator placement. Of those randomized to prescription to ibuprofen plus oxycodone, only 51% used a dose of oxycodone.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to participants randomized to receive a prescription for ibuprofen, those randomized to receive a prescription for ibuprofen plus oxycodone reported higher maximum overnight pain scores.

IMPLICATIONS

Participants receiving a prescription for ibuprofen alone had lower maximum overnight pain scores following osmotic dilator placement. Given that opioid prescriptions did not appear to reduce overnight pain, minimizing these prescriptions would avoid opioid exposure for patients undergoing D&E.

A double-blind randomized trial comparing lidocaine spray and placebo spray anesthesia prior to cervical laminaria insertion

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain during laminaria insertion after lidocaine spray versus placebo spray anesthesia in women about to undergo a surgical abortion procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of women at 12-24 weeks gestation one day prior to surgical uterine evacuation procedure. Participants received lidocaine 10% or placebo (saline 0.9%) spray to the endocervix and ectocervix two minutes before laminaria insertion. The primary outcome was participants' pain score immediately after initial laminaria insertion, measured using a 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included scores at speculum removal and 15 min after speculum insertion.

RESULTS

From 7/2016 through 8/2018, we enrolled 68 and 66 women to the lidocaine and placebo groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The primary outcome did not differ between lidocaine and placebo groups (median VAS 2.0 vs. 2.0 respectively, p = 0.69). Reported VAS after speculum removal and 15 min from speculum insertion were similar in the lidocaine and placebo groups (median 2.0, p = 0.99; median 1.0 vs. 1.5 respectively, p = 0.32). In multivariate analyses, lidocaine use was associated with decreased VAS score at 15 min from speculum insertion [95%CI -0.96 (-1.74 to -0.18), p = 0.016]. Reported VAS ≥7 at 1st laminaria insertion did not differ between lidocaine and placebo groups (5.88% vs. 10.61% respectively, p = 0.362).

CONCLUSION

In women scheduled for laminaria insertion prior to surgical uterine evacuation at 12-24 weeks gestation, topical application of lidocaine spray to the cervix before insertion did not result in lower reported pain as compared with placebo.

IMPLICATIONS

Our results imply that physicians should not use topical application of lidocaine spray to the cervix before laminaria insertion to reduce women's pain. Continued efforts must be made to find means to relieve pain by using simple, effective analgesia or adjusting the technique, and not using a tenaculum whenever possible.

Current and potential methods for second trimester abortion

Medical and surgical methods can both be recommended for second trimester abortion (after 12-weeks of gestational age). Induced abortion with a mifepristone and misoprostol regimen is the preferred approach; where mifepristone is not available, misoprostol alone for medical abortion is also effective. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is the procedure of choice for surgical abortions, and adequate cervical preparation contributes significantly to safety. Availability of drugs and instruments, ability to provide pain control, provider skill and comfort, client preference, cultural considerations, and local legislation all influence the method of abortion likely to be performed in a given setting. Both surgical and modern medical methods are safe and effective when provided by a trained, experienced provider.

Paracervical Block for Laminaria Insertion Before Second-Trimester Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a paracervical block to decrease pain during osmotic dilator insertion before second-trimester abortion.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized trial, 41 women undergoing Laminaria insertion before a second-trimester abortion received either a paracervical block with 18 mL 1% lidocaine and 2 mL sodium bicarbonate or a sham block. Women were between 14 and 23 6/7 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was pain immediately after insertion of Laminaria. Women assessed their pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included assessment of pain at other times during the insertion procedure and overall satisfaction with pain control. To detect a 25-mm difference in pain immediately after Laminaria insertion, at an α of 0.05 and 80% power, we aimed to enroll 20 patients in each arm.

RESULTS

From May 2015 to December 2015, 20 women received a paracervical block and 21 received a sham block. Groups were similar in demographics, including parity, history of surgical abortion, and number of Laminaria placed. The paracervical block reduced pain after Laminaria insertion (median scores 13 mm [interquartile range 2-39] compared with 54 mm [interquartile range 27-61], P=.01, 95% CI -47.0 to -4.0). Women who received a paracervical block also reported higher satisfaction with overall pain control throughout the entire Laminaria insertion procedure (median scores 95 mm [interquartile range 78-100] compared with 70 mm [interquartile range 44-90], P=.05, 95% CI 0.0-37.0).

CONCLUSION

Paracervical block is effective at reducing the pain of Laminaria insertion. Additionally, a paracervical block increases overall patient satisfaction with pain control during Laminaria placement.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02454296.

Misoprostol 1 to 3 h preprocedure vs. overnight osmotic dilators prior to early second-trimester surgical abortion

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the effectiveness of at least 1 h of 400 mcg of buccal misoprostol to overnight osmotic dilators for early second-trimester surgical abortion cervical preparation.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study, reviewing 145 consecutive charts to compare procedure duration for women who received 400 mcg of buccal misoprostol at least 1 h preprocedure vs. overnight osmotic dilators before dilation and evacuation between 14 weeks, 0 days and 15 weeks, 6 days' gestation. Primary outcome was procedure duration and secondary outcomes included maximum mechanical dilator size, estimated blood loss and side effects.

RESULTS

Sixty-four women (44.1%) received buccal misoprostol (mean 1.6 h), and 81 women (55.9%) received overnight osmotic dilators. Groups did not differ regarding mean gestational age or gynecologic history. All procedures in both groups were completed. Procedure duration was not significantly different between the misoprostol and osmotic dilator groups (median 11.0 min vs. 10.0 min, p=.22), even after multivariable linear regression (p=.17). The mean total cervical preparation duration was 1.6 h for women in the misoprostol group compared to 20.3 h in the osmotic dilator group (p<.001). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that at least 1 h of preprocedure misoprostol decreased the duration of cervical preparation for early second-trimester procedures performed by an experienced surgeon.

IMPLICATIONS

In this small, retrospective review, at least 1 h of preprocedure buccal misoprostol decreased the duration from cervical preparation initiation to procedure completion in early second-trimester procedures performed by an experienced surgeon. These results should be considered as a pilot evaluation, and further prospective study is needed to further clarify whether this short interval could be applied in general practice.