Diclofenac plus lidocaine gel for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

Differing Approaches to Pain Management for Intrauterine Device Insertion and Maintenance: A Scoping Review

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are considered a reliable contraceptive option for women, but they can come with side effects. There is a disconnect in standard guidelines for IUD insertion within and without the U.S. The objective of this review was to address a gap in the literature regarding official procedures for pain management during IUD implantation. This scoping review was initiated using keywords to extract relevant articles from multiple databases: U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (PubMed), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE, Ovid). Initially, 457 articles were identified and after a rigorous screening and selection process, 37 articles were chosen to be further assessed to ascertain if they met the study's inclusion criteria. Those 37 articles were further evaluated fully to check for relevancy. From that process, 19 articles were chosen for the review, and all passed quality assessment evaluations using the JB Appraisal Tools. To best address the research question, the data from the 19 articles were divided into three categories: 1) circumstantial factors, 2) non-pharmacological methods, and 3) pharmacological methods. Circumstantially, women with previous vaginal deliveries experienced the lowest pain during the procedure, and nulligravid (never pregnant) women experienced the most pain. Lower pain scores were reported by lactating women compared to non-lactating. Black women experienced the most anticipated pain compared to other races. Regarding non-pharmacological methods, different insertion techniques, tools, and the use of a cold compress were found to not affect the level of pain during IUD insertion. Lastly, it was shown that pharmacological methods such as lidocaine gel, lidocaine paracervical block, and lidocaine combined with either diclofenac or prilocaine decreased pain scores at different time stamps of the procedure. Also, oral ketorolac and a vaginal combination of misoprostol and dinoprostone helped reduce pain. Findings from this scoping review revealed a lack of uniformity across practices when performing IUD insertions, possibly due to differences in procedures across circumstantial factors, non-pharmacological methods, and pharmacological methods. More research is needed to investigate the intricacies of pain with IUD insertion. Moving forward, especially following a potential increase in the use of IUDs after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, establishing this gap may lead to a more refined standardized protocol to mitigate pain with IUD insertions.

Dysmenorrhoea as a risk factor for pain with intrauterine device insertion

BACKGROUND

Understanding predictors of pain with gynaecological procedures may facilitate individualised counselling and pain management. We aimed to study the effect of dysmenorrhoea on intrauterine device (IUD) insertion pain.

METHODS

This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomised trial evaluating self-administered lidocaine gel versus placebo for IUD insertion pain. We included those participants who reported menses in the past 3 months. We assessed dysmenorrhoea (in the past 3 months) and procedural pain using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). We categorised dysmenorrhoea as none/mild (<40 mm), moderate (40-69 mm) or severe (≥70 mm). We assessed participant pain scores at speculum insertion, tenaculum placement, IUD insertion, and overall. We compared median procedural pain scores by dysmenorrhoea group with three-way and post hoc pairwise analyses.

RESULTS

We analysed 188 participants. Demographic characteristics were similar among the three dysmenorrhoea groups. Pairwise comparisons revealed higher median procedural pain scores in the severe dysmenorrhoea group compared with the none/mild dysmenorrhoea group at speculum insertion (25 mm vs 8 mm; p=0.007), tenaculum placement (51 mm vs 31 mm; p=0.04) and IUD insertion (74 mm vs 61 mm; p=0.04). Overall pain did not differ among the three groups (p=0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe dysmenorrhoea experienced increased pain with all aspects of IUD insertion, including speculum and tenaculum placement, compared with those with only mild or no dysmenorrhoea. Clinicians may consider this finding when providing individualised counselling and pain management for patients undergoing IUD insertion and other gynaecological procedures. Larger studies are needed to validate the effect of dysmenorrhoea severity on pain throughout IUD insertion.

Self-administrated vaginal 2% lidocaine in-situ gel for pain relief during copper intrauterine device insertion in women with previous caesarean delivery only: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the analgesic effect of self-administered vaginal 2% lidocaine in-situ gel in pain relief during copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in women with previous caesarean delivery only.

METHODS

A Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03166111) included reproductive-aged women who previously delivered only by caesarean section (CS) requesting Copper IUD insertion. Eligible women were recruited and randomised (1:1) to lidocaine in-situ gel vs. placebo. Each woman was supplied by a syringe filled with five ml lidocaine or placebo in-situ gel to be self-administered vaginally ten minutes before insertion. The primary outcome was the difference in pain scores during IUD placement using a 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The final analysis included 216 women (n = 108 in each arm). Women in the Lidocaine in situ gel group were more likely to report statistically significant lower pain scores during vulsellum application, uterine sound placement, and during IUD placement [Mean difference (95%CI) = 2.04 (1.66-2.42), 2.62 (2.20-3.04), and 2.57 (2.12-3.01), respectively, p = 0.0001]. A significantly lower IUD insertion score indicating easier insertion was reported in the lidocaine group (p = 0.004). Similarly, the duration of IUD insertion was significantly shorter in the lidocaine group (p = 0.008). There was a higher level of satisfaction in the lidocaine group (5.92 vs. 3.34) in the placebo group (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-administered vaginal lidocaine in-situ gel 10 min before copper IUD insertion is effective in pain reduction in women with previous caesarean delivery only.

Strategies to Mitigate Anxiety and Pain in Intrauterine Device Insertion: A Systematic Review

One barrier to the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) as a contraceptive method is the experience of anxiety and pain during the insertion procedure. Previous reviews have focused on pharmacological methods used to relieve pain during IUD insertion; however, few similar reviews have examined non-pharmacological methods to relieve pain or strategies to reduce anxiety. The objectives of this study were to identify and categorize strategies for reducing anxiety and pain with respect to IUD insertion and the ways in which anxiety and pain were assessed. In particular, the study aimed to identify non-pharmacological interventions and studies that included anxiety as a research outcome. A literature search was conducted of all English-language studies between inception and the week of July 29, 2018 from the following online databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. The search revealed 426 studies after removal of duplicates, 35 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 29 studies were identified as assessing pharmacological interventions for the management of pain, and six studies assessed non-pharmacological interventions. Only one study included a measurement of patient anxiety during the procedure as an outcome measure. Research on non-pharmacological interventions for the management of anxiety and pain during IUD insertion is lacking. This review found that evidence for the studied pharmacological interventions is conflicting, and there is very little evidence on understanding the effectiveness of strategies to manage anxiety during the IUD insertion procedure. Further high-quality research on non-pharmacological pain and anxiety management strategies is warranted.

Prophylactic vaginal dinoprostone administration six hours prior to copper-T380A intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of 3 mg vaginal dinoprostone administered six hours prior to copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion compared to placebo in increasing ease of insertion and reducing insertion pain among nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a single-center double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). We randomly divided the two hundred nulliparous women requesting a copper T380A IUD to receive 3 mg vaginal dinoprostone or placebo six hours before IUD insertion. The primary outcome was provider ease of insertion. Patients reported their perceived insertion pain using a 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS). We also reported number of failed IUD insertions.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Ease of insertion score was lower in dinoprostone group than placebo group (3.6 ± 2.5 vs. 5.4 ± 2.8; p < 0.01) denoting easier insertion for clinicians in dinoprostone group. Mean pain score during copper IUD insertion was lower in dinoprostone group (3.7 ± 2.3 vs. 5.0 ± 2.8; p < 0.01). Failed IUD insertion occurred in two cases of dinoprostone group (2%) versus four cases in control group (4%) (p-value; 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Although vaginal dinoprostone administration six hours prior to copper IUD insertion in nulliparous women leads to an easy IUD insertion, we do not routinely advise it as the reduction in IUD insertion pain scores with vaginal dinoprostone lacked clinical significance.

IMPLICATIONS

In settings where it is feasible to provide dinoprostone vaginally six hours before copper IUD insertion, clinicians will find insertion easier, and nulliparous women may experience somewhat less pain during the procedure. Where waiting six hours is practical, this may prove to be useful.

Practical Tips for Intrauterine Device Counseling, Insertion, and Pain Relief in Adolescents: An Update

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have endorsed intrauterine devices as first-line contraceptive choices for nulliparous and parous adolescents. Practical concerns about intrauterine devices might be barriers to use for teens and clinicians; this review is devoted to "practical tips" for clinicians, on the basis of an update of the available literature as well as the author's clinical experience. Counseling about contraceptive choices, preventive guidance about possible side effects, informed consent, and pain management are addressed to promote successful use of this long-acting reversible contraption option.

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.

Pain Perception during Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women: A Systematic Review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) still remain underused in adolescents. Pain during insertion might prevent adolescents to opt for a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and critically appraise published data with respect to the efficacy of various substances (analgesics or not) in preventing pain during levonorgestrel-releasing IUD insertion in nulliparous women as a proxy for adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comprehensive computerized systematic literature search of all English language studies between 2006 and 2016 was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar. Relevant article reference lists were manually searched.

RESULTS

The computerized database search revealed 31 citations of relevance, 9 of which with a total of 355 treated women and 345 controls fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In women treated with misoprostol (n = 150) vs placebo (n = 145), the median visual analogue scale (VAS) score ± SD were 5.7 ± 2.1 vs 5.1 ± 2.2, respectively. In the previously mentioned population, there was a nonsignificant change in VAS score (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-2.40). In women treated with lidocaine (n = 140) vs placebo (n = 136), the median VAS score ± SD were 4.6 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2, respectively. In the aforementioned population, there was a significant decrease in VAS score (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.91).

CONCLUSION

In nulliparous women, lidocaine treatment seems to be a reasonable choice. However, further studies are required to examine the different routes and modes of administration as well as optimal quantities.

Anticipated pain as a predictor of discomfort with intrauterine device placement

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine devices have been gaining popularity for the past 2 decades. Current data report that >10% of women who use contraception are using an intrauterine device. With <1% failure rates, the intrauterine device is one of the most effective forms of long-acting reversible contraception, yet evidence shows that fear of pain during intrauterine device placement deters women from choosing an intrauterine device as their contraceptive method.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this analysis was to estimate the association between anticipated pain with intrauterine device placement and experienced pain. We also assessed other factors associated with increased discomfort during intrauterine device placement. We hypothesized that patients with higher levels of anticipated pain would report a higher level of discomfort during placement.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a secondary analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. There were 9256 patients enrolled in Contraceptive CHOICE Project from the St. Louis region from 2007-2011; data for 1149 subjects who came for their first placement of either the original 52-mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system or the copper intrauterine device were analyzed in this study. Patients were asked to report their anticipated pain before intrauterine device placement and experienced pain during placement on a 10-point visual analog scale. We assessed the association of anticipated pain, patient demographics, reproductive characteristics, and intrauterine device type with experienced pain with intrauterine device placement.

RESULTS

The mean age of Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants in this subanalysis was 26 years. Of these 1149 study subjects, 44% were black, and 53% were of low socioeconomic status. The median expected pain score was 5 for both the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and the copper intrauterine device; the median experienced pain score was 5 for the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and 4 for the copper intrauterine device. After we controlled for parity, history of dysmenorrhea, and type of intrauterine device, higher anticipated pain was associated with increased experienced pain (adjusted relative risk for 1 unit increase in anticipated pain, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.25). Nulliparity, history of dysmenorrhea, and the hormonal intrauterine device (compared with copper) also were associated with increased pain with intrauterine device placement.

CONCLUSION

High levels of anticipated pain correlated with high levels of experienced pain during intrauterine device placement. Nulliparity and a history of dysmenorrhea were also associated with greater discomfort during placement. This information may help guide and treat patients as they consider intrauterine device placement. Future research should focus on interventions to reduce preprocedural anxiety and anticipated pain to potentially decrease discomfort with intrauterine device placement.

Medications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures, insertion success).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined medications to ease interval insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs and copper T IUDs.

RESULTS

From 1855 articles, we identified 15 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Most evidence suggested that misoprostol did not improve provider ease of insertion, reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures or improve insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD (evidence Level I, good to fair). However, one RCT found significantly higher insertion success among women receiving misoprostol prior to a second IUD insertion attempt after failed attempt versus placebo (evidence Level I, good). Two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good to poor), and one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (evidence Level I, fair).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo.