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

Nitrous Oxide Use for Intrauterine System Placement in Adolescents

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of nitrous oxide on patient-reported pain for placement of intrauterine systems (IUSs) in adolescents STUDY DESIGN: : Prospective observational study SETTING: : IUS placement in an ambulatory clinic compared with placement with nitrous oxide in a hospital-based sedation unit PARTICIPANTS: : English-speaking adolescents aged 12 to 20 presenting to a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist with a medical indication for IUS placement MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Patient-reported procedural pain measured on a visual analog scale 2 minutes post IUS insertion procedure. Secondary outcome measurement of likelihood of recommending an IUS to a peer.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients agreed to participate. Forty-five patients underwent IUS placement in the clinic. Controlling for age, history of dysmenorrhea, and body mass index, a significant time (change in reported pain scores pre- vs post IUS insertion) by treatment (nitrous oxide vs standard of care) interaction was observed for patient-reported pain (b = -29.32 mm, P < 0.01). Patients receiving nitrous oxide were more likely to recommend an intrauterine placement than patients who received the current standard of care for pain management (b = 0.47, P = 0.02) after controlling for age, baseline pain score, and dysmenorrhea history.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported pain was attenuated for patients who received nitrous oxide relative to those who received standard IUS placement. Patient-reported satisfaction was higher for patients who received nitrous oxide relative to those who received standard IUS placement.

Verbal analgesia is as good as oral tramadol prior to intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, among nulliparous women: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare two pain management strategies: oral tramadol or a verbal analgesia technique during insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) among nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized, controlled trial, 54 nulliparous women undergoing insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD), from December 2015 to December 2018 were randomized to receive oral tramadol for analgesia or verbal analgesia prior to IUD insertion. Demographic data, clinical symptoms, visual analogue scale (VAS) and complications were reviewed from patient records.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two groups regarding gravidity, age, smoking or body mass index. No significant differences were detected between the groups regarding the procedure, including ease of insertion (p = .415), number of insertion attempts (p = .514) and complications during the insertion (p = .150). Mean pain level by VAS was 4.5 ± 1.6 (range 2-8) for the tramadol group and 4.8 ± 2.4 (0-10) for the verbal analgesia group (p = .610). There was no spontaneous ejection of the IUD in either group, and no endometritis or discomfort that resulted in IUD removal.

CONCLUSION

There was no benefit in using oral tramadol for analgesia prior to IUD insertion among nulliparous women. Verbal analgesia can be a suitable technique for this process and clinicians should become more familiar with its use.

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System as a Contraceptive Method in Nulliparous Women: A Systematic Review

The aim of this review was to summarize the available evidence about the use of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a contraceptive method in nulliparous women. For this purpose, studies evaluating the efficacy, safety, bleeding pattern, satisfaction and discontinuation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in nulliparous women were analyzed. Only original research articles published in English between 1990–27th March 2020 were considered eligible. Reviews, book chapters, case studies, conference papers, opinions, editorials and letters were excluded. The systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library databases identified 816 articles, 23 of which were analyzed. The available evidence indicates that LNG-IUS is an effective and safe contraceptive method for nulliparous women that achieves high levels of satisfaction among patients. Moreover, nulliparous women seem to experience fewer expulsions than parous ones. Bleeding pattern is acceptable for the majority of patients, and bleeding disorders mainly occur in the first months after the insertion. More in-depth, long-term prospective studies are needed in this patient group to determine risk factors for the occurrence of side effects and associated discontinuations, which should not, however, delay the wider use of the method in this group, given the number of advantages.

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.

Insertion experience of women and health care professionals in the Kyleena® Satisfaction Study

Purpose: The Kyleena^® Satisfaction Study (KYSS) is a prospective, observational study conducted to assess satisfaction with LNG-IUS 12 (Kyleena^®) in clinical practice and aims to provide adequate information for counselling women on what to expect regarding insertion and satisfaction.Materials and methods: Women deciding to use LNG-IUS 12 during routine counselling were informed of the study and provided informed consent. A baseline analysis was conducted to evaluate demographics, ease of insertion assessed by investigators, pain at insertion rated by women, additional interventions for insertion, and adverse events.Results: 1,110 women (536 parous, 574 nulliparous) had an insertion attempt and were included. Insertion was rated as easy in 494 (92.2%) parous and 516 (89.9%) nulliparous women. Pain was assessed as none or mild by 475 (88.6%) parous and 387 (67.4%) nulliparous women. Additional interventions were not required for most insertions (705; 63.6%). Overall 111 (10.0%) women reported adverse events at the time of baseline analysis.Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that LNG-IUS 12 insertion is easy and associated with no or mild pain in most women. Additional interventions for insertion are not required in most cases. After 3 months, the number of adverse events is low.Implications: The present baseline analysis of the Kyleena^® Satisfaction Study (KYSS) demonstrates that most women rate insertion pain of LNG-IUS 12 as none or mild and clinicians consider insertion easy in the majority of cases.

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.

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.

Will it Hurt? The Intrauterine Device Insertion Experience and Long-Term Acceptability Among Adolescents and Young Women

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To examine how the intrauterine device (IUD) insertion experience affects long-term IUD acceptability among adolescents.

DESIGN

Text to Web survey study.

SETTING

Boston Children's Hospital and Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts.

PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Nulliparous adolescents aged 13-21 years who received an IUD or etonogestrel implant between January 2012 and May 2018.

RESULTS

We received survey responses from 95 adolescents (n = 46 IUD; n = 49 implant; response rate = 95/1098 (9%)). Mean current age (20.8 years) and time since device insertion (2.4 years) were similar between groups. Although a large proportion of both groups (64%) experienced moderate to severe preprocedural anxiety, IUD users expected more insertional pain compared with implant users (55.6 vs 39.6; P = .01). Compared with implant users, more IUD users experienced moderate to severe insertional pain (80% vs 18%; P < .0001), recalled that the procedure hurt more than expected (52% vs 4%; P < .0001), and endorsed lower rates of pain management satisfaction (72.4 vs 85.6; P = .04). Most respondents would recommend their method to a friend (75%) or consider getting the same device in the future (63%). When explicitly asked, more IUD users reported that dislike of the insertion procedure might or would probably prevent them from getting the same device in the future (41% vs 14%; P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Compared with implant users, IUD users reported more negative insertion experiences, although preprocedural anxiety was prevalent in both groups. Dislike of the insertion experience might negatively affect adolescents' willingness to continue using an IUD in the future. Findings should encourage multimodal interventions to holistically improve the IUD insertion experience.