Intrauterine lidocaine plus buccal misoprostol in the endometrial biopsy

Evaluation and ranking of different interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To identify the highest-ranked pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy.

METHODS

We conducted an online bibliographic search in different databases from inception till July 2019. We included randomized controlled trials assessing effect of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions on pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy. Our main outcomes were pain scores at different endpoints of the procedure. We applied this network meta-analysis based on the frequentist approach using statistical package 'netmeta' (version 1.0-1) in R.

RESULTS

The review included 39 randomized controlled trials (Women n = 3964). Misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = -3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.06, -0.59]), misoprostol (MD = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.04, -0.81]) and IV analgesia (MD = -2.01, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.25]) were effective in reducing pain during the procedure compared to placebo. Ranking probability showed that misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia was the highest ranked pharmacological treatment for pain relief during the procedure (P score = 0.92) followed by misoprostol alone (P score = 0.78), and IV analgesia (P score = 0.76). Regarding nonpharmacological treatments, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed a significant pain reduction compared to placebo (MD = -1.80, 95% CI [-3.31, -0.29]). TENS ranked as the best nonpharmacological treatment (P score = 0.80) followed by CO₂ distention (P score = 0.65) and bladder distention (P score = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

Combination of misoprostol plus local anesthesia appears to be the most effective pharmacological approach for pain reduction during and after outpatient hysteroscopy. Nonpharmacological approaches as TENS and bladder distention showed considerable efficacy but should be further investigated.

Methods of pain control during endometrial biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To review effectiveness of methods for reducing pain during endometrial biopsy.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that examined effectiveness of pain control methods for endometrial biopsy. Risk of bias was assessed from sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. Heterogeneity was examined from forest plot, statistical tests of homogeneity, and I² statistic. For meta-analysis of pain scores, weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included in the review. Marginally significant reduction in the pain score during the procedure in participants with intrauterine lidocaine relative to control was observed (mean difference [MD] -1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.70 to 0.09, P = 0.07). Subgroup analysis showed that in studies that used low-pressure suction devices, intrauterine lidocaine was associated with statistically significant reduction in pain during the procedure (MD -2.22, 95% CI -3.72 to -0.73, P = 0.004). There was a significantly lower pain score during biopsy in the anesthetic spray group compared to control (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.39, P = 0.001). Significant heterogeneity on types of intervention and outcome measures among studies that examined paracervical block and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) was observed. However, paracervical block and NSAID were associated with significant pain reduction compared to placebo in most of the related studies.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine anesthetics, anesthetic cervical spray, paracervical block and oral NSAID provide effective pain control during endometrial biopsy.

Intrauterine lidocaine and naproxen for analgesia during intrauterine device insertion: randomized controlled trial

Background

This study evaluates oral naproxen and intrauterine instillation of lidocaine for analgesia with intrauterine device (IUD) placement as compared to placebo.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients desiring levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD or Copper T380A IUD were randomized into treatment groups. Patients received either oral naproxen 375 mg or placebo approximately 1 h prior to procedure in conjunction with 5 mL of 2% lidocaine or 5 mL of intrauterine saline. The primary outcome was pain with IUD insertion measured on a visual analog scale immediately following the procedure. Prespecified secondary outcomes included physician pain assessment, post procedure analgesia, satisfaction with procedure, satisfaction with IUD, and pain assessment related to IUD type.

Results

From June 4, 2014 to October 28, 2016 a total of 160 women desiring Copper T380A or levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device insertion and meeting study criteria were enrolled and randomized in the study. Of these, 157 (78 in the Copper T380A arm, 79 in the levonorgestrel 52 mg) received study treatment medication. There were 39 in naproxen/lidocaine arm, 39 in placebo/lidocaine arm, 40 in naproxen/placebo arm, and 39 in placebo/placebo arm. There were no differences in the mean pain scores for IUD placement between treatment groups (naproxen/lidocaine 3.38 ± 2.49; lidocaine only 2.87 ± 2.13; naproxen only 3.09 ± 2.18; placebo 3.62 ± 2.45). There was no difference in self-medication post procedure or in satisfaction with the procedure and IUD among women in the treatment arms or by type of IUD.

Conclusion

Naproxen with or without intrauterine lidocaine does not reduce pain with IUD placement.

Clinical trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02769247. Registered May 11, 2016, Retrospectively registered.

Efficacy of Intrauterine Lidocaine Instillation in Reducing Pain during Endometrial Biopsy by Novak

Abnormal uterine bleeding in women aged 35 years or over is an important clinical sign of many gynecological conditions. The diagnoses of these conditions require the pathological report of the endometrial tissue. Outpatient-based endometrial biopsy is an excellent option compared to standard fractional uterine curettage or hysteroscopy with endometrial biopsy in providing a definite diagnosis for abnormal uterine bleeding as it is less painful and does not require high potency anesthesia. This study evaluates the effect of intrauterine lidocaine on the patient's pain score during endometrial biopsy by the Novak curette. We included patients aged 35 years or more who had abnormal uterine bleeding between December 2016 and March 2018. The study was conducted at Thammasat University Hospital, Pathum Thani, Thailand. 250 patients were randomly allocated to either receive intrauterine lidocaine (study group) or normal saline (control group). Assessment of pain severity was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 6 time-points, namely, before performing the procedure, when grasping the cervix by the tenaculum, during the intrauterine instillation of lidocaine or normal saline, during the uterine curettage, and then 15 minutes and 2 hours after the procedure. This study showed that there was significant pain reduction in patients who received intrauterine instillation of lidocaine compared to placebo, during uterine curettage, as well as 15 minutes and 2 hours after procedure (p<0.0001). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the two groups, while physician satisfaction significantly improved in the lidocaine group. Serious complications were not found during this study. (This research project had been approved for registration at Thai Clinical Trials Registry. TCTR identification number is TCTR20161031003.).

The optimal analgesic method in saline infusion sonogram: A comparison of two effective techniques with placebo

Objective:

Operations performed with local anesthesia can sometimes be extremely painful and uncomfortable for patients. Our aim was to investigate the optimal analgesic method in saline infusion sonograms.

Materials and Methods:

This study was performed in our Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology between March and August 2011. Ninety-six patients were included. Patients were randomly divided into groups that received saline (controls, group 1), paracervical block (group 2), or paracervical block + intrauterine lidocaine (group 3). In all groups, a visual analogue scale score was performed during the tenaculum placement, while saline was administered, and 30 minutes after the procedure.

Results:

When all the patients were evaluated, the difference in the visual analogue scale scores in premenopausal patients during tenaculum placement, during the saline infusion into the cavity, and 30 minutes following the saline infusion sonography were statistically different between the saline and paracervical block groups, and between the saline and paracervical block + intrauterine lidocaine group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between paracervical block and paracervical block + intrauterine lidocaine groups.

Conclusion:

As a result of our study, paracervical block is a safe method to use in premenopausal patients to prevent pain during saline infusion sonography. The addition of intrauterine lidocaine to the paracervical block does not increase the analgesic effect; moreover, it increases the cost and time that the patient stays in the dorsolithotomy position by 3 minutes.

Effect of lidocaine spray in pain management during office-based endometrial sampling: A randomised placebo-controlled trial

Office-based endometrial sampling is the most frequently performed gynaecological procedure. The procedure is usually associated with pain and discomfort. Several anaesthetic and analgesic techniques (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracervical block, misoprostol and topical anaesthetics) are used for pain management during endometrial sampling. There is no comprehensive study using lidocaine in spray form; we sought to investigate the analgesic efficacy of 10% lidocaine spray in patients undergoing office-based endometrial biopsy. We conducted a prospective, randomised (lidocaine spray (n = 60) and placebo (n = 60), respectively), double-blind study. The mean pain score during procedure was 3.51 ± 1.51 in the lidocaine spray group and 5.11 ± 1.66 in the placebo group. Lidocaine spray treatment significantly lowered the pain scores compared with placebo (p < 0.001). Lidocaine spray can be accepted as a non-invasive, easy to apply and more comfortable anaesthetic method for office-based endometrial sampling.

Comparison of tissue adequacy for histologic examination from Ipas MVA plus and Wallach Endocell in women with abnormal uterine bleeding

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare endometrial tissue adequacy sampling by Wallach Endocell and manual vacuum aspiration (Ipas MVA plus) in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Pain and immediate complications from each method were also compared.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred and forty women with abnormal uterine bleeding were randomly assigned to two methods of endometrial sampling: MVA (n = 122) and Endocell (n = 118). The basic characteristic features of the women, the difficulty of the procedure, pain score by visual analogue scale, immediate complications, and treatment were recorded. Endometrial tissue adequacy and histopathologic diagnoses were evaluated.

RESULTS

The adequacy of tissue samples was 81.1% in the MVA group and 85.6% in the Endocell group (P = 0.356). There was a significant difference in the rates of difficult procedure between the two groups (27.0% in MVA vs 14.4% in Endocell; P = 0.016). Moderate to severe pain was significantly higher in the MVA group compared to the Endocell group: 60.7% and 19.5%, respectively (P < 0.001). Other immediate minor complications were also observed to be significantly higher in the MVA group (44.3%) than in the Endocell group (30.5%) (P = 0.028). Although medication required for pain was higher in the MVA group (23.0%) than in the Endocell group (12.0%), the difference was not significant (P = 0.130). The two most common histopathologic findings obtained from MVA and Endocell specimens were proliferative endometrium (32.4%) and atrophic endometrium (27.1%).

CONCLUSION

MVA was comparable to Endocell in terms of tissue adequacy. Moderate to severe pain was experienced significantly more in the MVA group; however, the requirement of pain treatment was not significantly different between the groups.

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

OBJECTIVE

To determine if intrauterine administration of 5 cc of 2% lidocaine in addition to paracervical block reduces pain during laminaria insertion, when compared with paracervical block and saline placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized, double blind placebo-controlled trial. Women presenting for abortion by dilation and evacuation (D&E) at 14-24 weeks gestational age were randomized to receive an intrauterine instillation of either 5 mL of 2% lidocaine or 5 mL of normal saline, in addition to standard paracervical block with 20 cc of 0.25% bupivacaine. Our primary outcome was self-reported pain scores on a 100mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) immediately following laminaria insertion. Secondary outcome was self-reported VAS pain score indicating the maximum level of pain experienced during the 24-48-h interval between laminaria insertion and D&E procedure.

RESULTS

Seventy-two women were enrolled, and data for 67 women were analyzed, only two of whom were more than 21 weeks on gestation. The range of pain scores at both time points was large (1-90 mm at laminaria insertion; 0-100mm in laminaria-D&E interval). Mean pain scores were not different between treatment groups at laminaria insertion, (33 vs. 32, p=.8) or in the laminaria - D&E interval (43 vs. 44, p=.9).

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine administration of 5 cc of 2% lidocaine in addition to paracervical block did not reduce pain with laminaria insertion when compared to paracervical block with saline placebo.

IMPLICATIONS

Intrauterine lidocaine combined with paracervical block does not improve pain control at laminaria insertion when compared with paracervical block and saline placebo. Wide variation in pain scores and persistent pain after laminaria insertion suggests patient would benefit from more effective methods of pain control at laminaria insertion and during the post-laminaria interval.

Vaginal misoprostol versus a rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug to reduce pain during Pipelle endometrial biopsies: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol and a rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) on pain relief during Pipelle endometrial biopsies in a placebo-controlled randomized study.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-one women who had an indication for a Pipelle endometrial biopsy were randomized into three groups as follows: group 1, vaginal misoprostol; group 2, rectal NSAID, and group 3, control. After the procedure, the women were asked to record their pain severity on a visual analog scale. The secondary outcome of the study was patient acceptability, and vasovagal symptoms and analgesic requirements after the procedure were also recorded.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the demographic characteristics of the patients. The primary study outcome was the comparison of the median visual analog scale pain scores of groups 1 and 2 versus group 3 (controls); no statistically significant differences were found (p = 0.502). In addition, the patient acceptability (Likert scale), vasovagal symptoms and analgesic requirements after the procedure were similar among the groups (p = 0.204, 1 and 0.546, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study did not demonstrate a reduction in pain relief during Pipelle endometrial biopsies for patients receiving vaginal misoprostol or a rectal NSAID when compared to patients receiving placebo treatment.

The effect of different local anesthesia methods on pain relief in outpatient endometrial biopsy: randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Endometrial biopsy is necessary for diagnosing the reason of abnormal uterine bleeding in perimenopausal women. Currently outpatient endometrial biopsy is used for evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding which is associated with moderate to severe pain. Using lidocaine is one of the procedures which is used for pain relief while biopsy. This study is aimed at comparing the effect of different local anesthesia procedures on pain relief during endometrial biopsy.

METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, 160 multiparous 40-55 years old women with AUB, candidates for endometrial biopsy, were randomly assigned into four equal groups, to receive: 1-intrauterine lidocaine; 2-cervical spray lidocaine; 3- intrauterine lidocaine plus cervical spray lidocaine; or 4-intrauterine distilled water. Pain relief was measured at 3 different times: during endometrial biopsy, just after and 15 minutes after biopsy.

RESULTS

Pain intensity was reduced significantly at different times in intrauterine lidocaine and intrauterine lidocaine with cervical spray lidocaine receivers in compare with the groups which received cervical spray lidocaine and distilled water. The mean of difference pain relief during biopsy and 15 minutes after that was reduced significantly in the group which received intrauterine lidocaine and intrauterine lidocaine with cervical spray lidocaine in comparison with the other two groups.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine lidocaine was effective during endometrial biopsy, and using it with cervical spray lidocaine had no more beneficial effect.

Prospective study of combined colon and endometrial cancer screening in women with lynch syndrome: a patient-centered approach

BACKGROUND

Endometrial and colorectal cancers are the most common cancers in Lynch syndrome. Consensus guidelines recommend annual endometrial biopsy (EMB) and regular colonoscopies. We assessed the feasibility of concurrently performing EMB and colonoscopy and evaluated women's perception of pain, satisfaction, and acceptability.

METHODS

From July 2002 to December 2009, women who had a gene mutation for Lynch syndrome, met the Amsterdam II criteria, or had a high-risk situation that required screening were prospectively enrolled. After conscious sedation, the procedures were sequentially performed. Patients completed pre- and postprocedure questionnaires assessing pain, level of satisfaction, and acceptability. The Wilcoxon rank test and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare pain scores.

RESULTS

Forty-two women completed the study. Median age was 37 years (range, 25 to 73). Nineteen had previously had an EMB in the office setting. Women reported significantly lower median levels of pain in the combined procedure compared with previous office setting biopsies (P < .001). Regardless of parity, women reported significantly less pain for an EMB as part of the combined screen compared with an office EMB (parous, P = .003; nulliparous, P = .026). Women also reported a high level of satisfaction and more convenience in the combined procedure. All participants preferred combined to separately scheduled procedures and would recommend the combined procedure to their relatives.

CONCLUSION

Combined colon and endometrial cancer screening is a patient-centered approach that is feasible, acceptable, and may improve adherence to Lynch syndrome screening recommendations.

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.

Comparison of oral nonsteroidal analgesic and intrauterine local anesthetic for pain relief in uterine fractional curettage: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the analgesic efficacy of oral dexketoprofen trometamol and intrauterine lidocaine in patients undergoing fractional curettage.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 111 women. Subjects were randomly assigned into 4 groups to receive either 25 mg of dexketoprofen or similar-appearing placebo tablets and either 5 mL intrauterine 2% lidocaine or saline. The main outcome measure was the intensity of pain measured by a 10-cm visual analog scale. Pain scoring was performed prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the procedure.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found among the mean pain scores of women during the procedure in the dexketoprofen and saline, placebo and lidocaine, and dexketoprofen and lidocaine groups. The mean pain scores in all 3 groups revealed significant reduction when compared with placebo and saline combination (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Administration of intrauterine lidocaine or oral dexketoprofen appears to be effective in relieving fractional curettage associated pain. However, a combination of them does not work better in further reduction of pain.

Analgesic efficacy of intravenous paracetamol for outpatient fractional curettage: a randomised, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol for decreasing pain associated with fractional curettage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial included 70 women who underwent fractional curettage. Patients were randomly assigned to receive i.v. infusion of either 1000 mg paracetamol (n = 36) or 0.9% normal saline as placebo (n = 34) prior to the procedure. The main outcome measure was the intensity of pain assessed by a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Pain scoring was performed at t(1) = prior to the procedure, t(2) = during the procedure and t(3) = 30 min after the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t-test, chi-squared and Pearson's correlation analysis.

RESULTS

The pain scores at t(2) and t(3) were significantly higher than the score at t(1) in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the pain scores at t(1), t(2) and t(3) among the two groups. Menopausal status had no effect on the pain scores and on the treatment outcome. The pain scores prior to the procedure were significantly higher in women with a history of endometrial curettage when compared with women who have no history.

CONCLUSIONS

Fractional curettage is associated with mild pain. We were unable to detect a significant difference in pain scores in patients undergoing fractional curettage when comparing the use of i.v. paracetamol with placebo. History of prior endometrial curettage seems to be a predictor of the basal pain scores at admission although it does not affect the pain intensity related to the procedure.