Benefits of Self-administered Vaginal Dinoprostone 12 Hours before Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Adolescents and Young Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparative efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine cream and vaginal misoprostol in reducing pain during levonorgestrel intrauterine device insertion in women delivered only by cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine (LP) cream versus misoprostol versus placebo before levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) insertion.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital from April 30, 2020 to March 1, 2021 on 210 parous women willing to receive LNG-IUD and delivered only by elective cesarean delivery (CD). Participants received 200 μg vaginal misoprostol or 5 ml of LP cream 5% or placebo 3 h before LNG-IUS insertion. Primary outcome was pain during LNG-IUD insertion, while secondary outcomes were pain 10 min post-procedure, ease of insertion, patient satisfaction, insertion time, and drug side effects.

RESULTS

Pain during LNG-IUS insertion was reduced in LP group and misoprostol group compared to placebo group (2.1 ± 1.0 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001) and (2.3 ± 1.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001), respectively. Ease of procedure and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in LP and misoprostol groups than placebo (P <0.001). Need for additional analgesia was significantly higher in placebo group than in the other two groups (P = 0.009). Adverse events were not significantly different between the three groups except vomiting and abdominal cramps, which were higher with misoprostol.

CONCLUSION

LP cream and 200 μg of vaginal misoprostol administration before LNG-IUD insertion in women delivered only by elective CD effectively reduced pain during insertion and 10 min post-procedure with easier insertions, high patient satisfaction, and tolerable side effects. Pain reduction with LP cream was clinically significant.

Use of naproxen versus intracervical block for pain control during the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion in young women: a multivariate analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background

To compare the effectiveness of 550 mg naproxen sodium versus 6 mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block in pain lowering at the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) placement in young women.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, 100 women aged 15–24 years were block-randomized to receive either 6 mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block 5 min before the LNG-IUS insertion or 550 mg naproxen 30 min before the procedure. Forty-nine women received 550 mg naproxen and 51 received intracervical block. The primary outcome was pain at LNG-IUS insertion. Secondary outcomes were ease of insertion, insertion failures, and correct IUS positioning. Neither participants nor doctors were blinded. Pain at insertion was assessed by using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

Results

Women randomized to lidocaine intracervical block presented lower mean pain score at insertion, when compared to women who received naproxen (5.4 vs. 7.3, respectively; p < 0.001). Parous women had a 90.1% lower chance of experiencing severe pain (p = 0.004). There was a 49.8% reduction in the chance of severe pain for every 1-cm increase in the hysterometry (p = 0.002). The only complication observed during insertion was vasovagal-like reactions (7%). The insertion was performed without difficulty in 82% of the women. Participants in the intracervical block group presented higher proportion of malpositioned IUS on transvaginal ultrasound examination compared to women in naproxen group. Nevertheless, all the malpositioned IUS were inserted by resident physicians.

Conclusion

Lidocaine intracervical block was found to be more effective than naproxen in reducing LNG-IUS insertion pain.

Trial registration number: RBR-68mmbp, Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, Retrospectively registered (August 4, 2020), URL of trial registry record: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-68mmbp/.

Determining the Optimal Time Interval between Vaginal Dinoprostone Administration and Diagnostic Office Hysteroscopy in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized, Double-blind Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal timing of vaginal dinoprostone administration before office hysteroscopy (OH) in nulliparous women.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind trial.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 180 nulliparous women undergoing diagnostic OH.

INTERVENTIONS

We randomly allocated the women to long-interval or short-interval dinoprostone groups: three mg dinoprostone was administered vaginally 12 hours before OH in the long-interval group and 3 hours before OH in the short-interval group.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was pain during OH measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 = no pain; 100 = worst pain imaginable). The secondary outcomes were ease of hysteroscope passage, patient satisfaction score, and drug-related adverse effects. The patients in the long-interval dinoprostone group had lower pain scores during OH (p <.001). Contrarily, pain scores 30 minutes after the procedure were similar in both groups (p = .1). The patient satisfaction score was higher and clinicians found hysteroscope passage through the cervical canal easier and quicker in the long-interval dinoprostone group than in the short-interval group (p <.001, p = .003, and p <.001, respectively). Side effects were comparable in both study groups.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal dinoprostone administered 12 hours before OH was more effective than that administered 3 hours before OH in reducing pain during OH in nulliparous women, with easier hysteroscope insertion, shorter procedure duration, and higher patient satisfaction score.

Vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To systematically and meta-analytically investigate the efficacy and safety of vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo in pain relief during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were screened till 1 October 2020. Only randomised placebo-controlled studies were included and assessed for risk of bias. Main outcomes included IUD insertion related pain, patient satisfaction, provider ease of IUD insertion, and side effects. Pooled outcomes were summarised as standardised mean difference (SMD), weighted mean difference (WMD), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS

Five studies were included, comprising 862 patients; equally 431 patients received vaginal dinoprostone and placebo. All studies showed an overall low risk of bias. When compared to placebo, dinoprostone significantly correlated with decreased pain at tenaculum placement (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.43, -0.16], p = 0.01), decreased pain at uterine sounding (SMD = -0.88, 95% CI [-1.54, -0.22], p = 0.009), decreased pain at IUD insertion (SMD = -1.18, 95% CI [-1.74, -0.61], p < 0.001), decreased need for additional analgesia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.22, 0.53], p < 0.001), increased patient satisfaction (SMD = 1.41, 95% CI [0.62, 2.20], p < 0.001), and increased provider ease of IUD insertion (SMD = -1.17, 95% CI [-1.62, -0.73], p < 0.001). Fever was statistically significantly higher in dinoprostone versus placebo group (RR = 3.73, 95% CI [1.47, 9.44], p = 0.006). All other side effects-including nausea, vomiting, shivering, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, vasovagal attack, uterine perforation, and postprocedural bleeding-did not substantially differ between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first ever meta-analysis advocates that dinoprostone compared with placebo is safe, effective, and yields favourable analgesic outcomes during IUD insertion.

Comparative Efficacy of Vaginal Misoprostol vs Vaginal Dinoprostone Administered 3 Hours Prior to Copper T380A Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of misoprostol and dinoprostone tablets administered vaginally 3 hours before copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion vs placebo in reducing pain and increasing ease of insertion among nulliparous women.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 129 nulliparous women requesting a Copper T380A IUD insertion.

INTERVENTIONS

Women were randomized to receive 200 μg misoprostol or 3 mg dinoprostone or placebo 3 hours before IUD insertion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Primary outcome was patient-reported pain during IUD insertion using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes include provider ease of insertion, women satisfaction level, and side effects.

RESULTS

Participants' baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. Mean pain score during IUD insertion was lower with misoprostol than placebo (3.1 ± 2.3 vs 4.4 ± 2.2; P = .02) and dinoprostone compared to placebo (2.4 ± 1.8 vs 4.4 ± 2.2; P < .001). Clinicians reported easier IUD insertion with misoprostol than placebo (2.4 ± 1.7 vs 4.0 ± 2.4; P = .001) and dinoprostone compared to placebo (2.0 ± 1.5 vs 4.0 ± 2.4; P < .001). Women's satisfaction levels were higher with both misoprostol and dinoprostone than placebo (P < .001). Side effects did not differ among the 3 study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with vaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone effectively lowered pain during copper IUD insertion. However, the reduction in pain scores was clinically significant only in women who received dinoprostone. In both the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, clinicians found the procedure easier, and women were more satisfied with IUD insertion. Side effects and complications were similar in all groups.