Postoperative analgesia with tramadol and indomethacin for diagnostic curettage and early termination of pregnancy

Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion

BACKGROUND

Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to control pain; however, many people still experience pain with the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, POPLINE, and Google Scholar to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials of pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using suction aspiration. We searched the reference lists of related reviews and articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected effectiveness and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials that studied local anaesthesia with common local anaesthetics and administration routes given for pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. Outcomes included intraoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We computed mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables reporting a mean. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of interventions, we could not pool more than two studies for any outcome. We used 13 mm improvement on a visual/verbal analogue scale to indicate a clinically meaningful difference in pain with surgical abortion (pain with dilation, aspiration, or during procedure). Based on type of pain control, we divided studies into three groups. Paracervical block (PCB) effectiveness trials A 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB reduced pain with dilation (MD -37.00, 95% CI -45.64 to -28.36), and aspiration (MD -26.00, 95% CI -33.48 to -18.52) compared to a sham PCB (1 RCT, 120 participants; high-certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL of 1% chloroprocaine resulted in a slight reduction in pain with aspiration compared to a PCB with normal saline injected at two or four sites (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.55; 1 RCT, 79 participants; high-certainty evidence). PCB comparative effectiveness trials An ultracaine PCB probably results in little to no clinically meaningful difference in pain during procedure compared to topical cervical lidocaine spray (median 1 point higher, interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A 1000 mg dose of intravenous paracetamol probably does not decrease pain as much as ultracaine PCB during procedure (median 2 points higher, IQR 1 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Various local anaesthetics in PCB comparative effectiveness trials A 10 mL buffered 2% lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.71; 1 RCT, 167 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A buffered lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, 291 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique effectiveness trials PCB: waiting versus no waiting Waiting three to five minutes between 1% lidocaine PCB injection and dilation probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to not waiting (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Topical cervical analgesia Topical 10 mL 2% lignocaine gel probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to KY Jelly (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.14; 1 RCT, 131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants who also received a PCB, 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain during the procedure compared to two pumps of normal saline spray (median -1 point, IQR -2 to -1; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 55 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intravenous paracetamol 1000 mg compared to two pumps of cervical lidocaine spray probably does not results in a clinically meaningful difference in pain procedure (median 1 point, IQR -2 to 2; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique comparative effectiveness trials Depth of PCB The evidence suggests that a 3-cm deep PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to a 1.5-cm deep PCB (MD -1.00, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.91; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). PCB: four sites versus two sites A two-site (4-8 o'clock) 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a four-site (2-4-8-10 o'clock) PCB (MD 8.60, 95% CI 0.69 to 16.51; 1 RCT, 163 participants; high-certainty evidence). Overall, participants reported moderately high satisfaction with pain control and studies reported few adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this updated review indicates that a 20 mL 1% plain lidocaine PCB decreases pain during an abortion procedure. Evidence supports forgoing buffering lidocaine and a wait time between PCB injection and cervical dilation. A 1.5-cm deep injection as opposed to a 3-cm deep injection is sufficient. A two-site PCB injection as opposed to a four-site injection has similar effectiveness. Topical cervical anaesthesia (10 mL 2% lignocaine gel or 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray) as compared to placebo did not decrease pain based on moderate-certainty evidence, but then when compared to PCB, pain control was similar. Due to this inconsistency in evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical anaesthesia, its routine use is presently not supported. This review did not include studies of pain management with conscious sedation but, based on the results of our prior Cochrane review and the 2022 WHO guidelines, we recommend that the option of combination of pain management using conscious sedation plus PCB and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be offered where conscious sedation is available as it further decreases pain.

Analysis of in-hospital analgesic pharmacotherapy costs and regimen and impact on postoperative pain-related function in degenerative lumbar intervertebral disc disease

BACKGROUND

Pain medication may affect clinical and economic outcomes, and a detailed description of pain medication use is advocated in the literautre for better assessment of clinical outcomes of spine surgery, which otherwise clould be misleading.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the impact of in-hospital analgesic pharmacotherapy after spine surgery on subjective quality of life and pain relief in patients with degenerative lumbar intervertebral disc disease (DLIVD), and also to analyze pharmacotherapy costs.

DESIGN

A single-center study included 50 patients with L5/S1 or L4/L5 DLIVD, eligible for spine surgery.

INTERVENTION

Neurosurgery for DLIVD.

MAIN ENDPOINTS

Outcomes in terms of postoperative pain and function were recorded prospectively using standardized questionnaires. Data for cost analysis and pharmcotherapy regimen were obtained retrospectively from case histories, doctors' request cards and hospital discharge summaries.

RESULTS

Mean total pharmacotherapy cost amounted to €453.42±49.09. Mean pharmacotherapy cost amounted to €314.76±54.21 preoperatively, and €138.66±25.54 postoperatively. The greatest improvement in function and quality of life was in patients treated with non-opioids.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the notion that analgesic pharmacotherapies could be differentiated in terms of overall impact on quality of life, and that pain-related distress might be the most relevant factor in this setting.

The effect of preoperative intravenous lidocaine on postoperative pain following hysteroscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of hysteroscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of uterine and endometrial abnormalities is often associated with postoperative pain. This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the efficacy of preoperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine in reducing pain after hysteroscopy.

METHODS

In total, 138 patients undergoing elective hysteroscopy at the CHA Bundang Medical Center, Seongnam, Korea were randomly assigned to a control group (n = 69) or a lidocaine group (n = 69), which received normal saline or IV lidocaine at 1.5 mg/kg, respectively. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative pain.

RESULTS

The incidence of pain was significantly lower in the IV lidocaine group than in the control group at the post-anesthesia care unit (27.3% vs 68.2%, P < .001). The visual analog scale (0-10) score (median [interquartile range]) was lower in the IV lidocaine group than in the control group (0 [0-2]) vs 2 [0-4]), P < .001). The use of rescue analgesics and postoperative nausea and vomiting were similar between the 2 groups. This study demonstrated that administering 1.5 mg/kg of preoperative IV lidocaine can be a simple method to reduce incidence of pain after hysteroscopy.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative bolus administration of 1.5 mg/kg of IV lidocaine may be used to decrease incidence of pain after hysteroscopy under general anesthesia.

Two prophylactic medication approaches in addition to a pain control regimen for early medical abortion < 63 days' gestation with mifepristone and misoprostol: study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain is often cited as one of the worst features of medical abortion. Further, inadequate pain management may motivate some women to seek unnecessary clinical care. There is a need to identify effective methods for pain control in this setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

We propose a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. 576 participants (288 nulliparous; 288 parous) from study sites in Nepal, South Africa and Vietnam will be randomly allocated to one of three treatments: (1) ibuprofen 400 mg PO and metoclopramide 10 mg PO; (2) tramadol 50 mg PO and a placebo; or (3) two placebo pills, to be taken immediately before misoprostol and repeated once four hours later. All women will be provided with supplementary analgesia for use as needed during the medical abortion. We hypothesize that women receiving prophylactic analgesia will report lower maximal pain scores in the first 8 h following misoprostol administration compared to women receiving placebos for medical abortion through 63 days' gestation. Our primary objective is to determine whether prophylactic administration of ibuprofen and metoclopramide or tramadol provides superior pain relief compared to analgesia administration after pain begins, measured during the first eight hours after misoprostol administration. Secondary objectives include identifying covariates associated with higher reported pain scores; determining any impact of the study medicines on medical abortion success; and, qualitatively exploring women's physical experiences of medical abortion, especially related to pain, and how can they be improved. Data sources include medical records, participant symptom diaries and interview data obtained on the day of enrollment, during the medical abortion, and at follow-up. Participants will be contacted via telephone on day 3 and return for follow-up will occur approximately 14 days after mifepristone, concluding study participation. A subset of 42 women will also be invited to undergo in-depth qualitative interviews following study completion.

DISCUSSION

Although pain is one of the most common side effects encountered with medical abortion, little is known about optimal pain management for this process. This multi-arm trial design offers an efficient approach to evaluating two prophylactic pain management regimens compared to use of pain medication as needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12613000017729 (Prospectively registered 8/1/2013).

Role of indomethacin in acute pain and inflammation management: a review of the literature

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are a class of analgesics that includes traditional nonselective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors that block the biosynthesis of prostaglandins and thromboxane. Indomethacin is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with potent antipyretic, analgesic, and anti-inflammatory activity that has been effectively used in the management of mild-to-moderate pain since the mid-1960s. It is commonly prescribed for the relief of acute gouty arthritis pain, but has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of various other painful conditions. Numerous comparative studies have affirmed the clinical utility of indomethacin relative to other widely used analgesics. This review provides an historic overview of indomethacin and its efficacy compared with other commonly used analgesics, and discusses new indomethacin drug products.

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.