Uterine or paracervical lidocaine application for pain control during intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

A multi-center study on the use of lidocaine thermogel for pain control in outpatient operative hysteroscopy

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the use of an anesthetic lidocaine thermogel in outpatient operative hysteroscopies. Specifically, it assessed the safety, tolerability, and ease of use of the gel, as well as its potential for pain reduction during the procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a multicenter observational study conducted in 9 gynecological units between March 2023 and January 2024. The study included adult women scheduled for outpatient operative hysteroscopies, excluding those with hypersensitivity to the product or recent participation in other clinical studies. The target sample size was 60 to account for potential dropouts. Data collection was electronic, and SPSS was used for analysis. The study assessed visibility conditions, procedure duration, pain scores at different stages of the procedure, and adverse event frequency. Statistical analyses utilized descriptive statistics, Student's t-tests, Wilcoxon and Friedman tests, and Chi-Square or Fisher tests as appropriate. Binary logistic regression was applied to identify factors influencing gel volume.

RESULTS

All 60 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 45.5 (SD 8.8) years, with a mean BMI of 27.0 (SD 5.6) kg/m2. Medical histories were reported in 46.7% of participants, and 50% had undergone previous gynecological surgeries. Prior to the procedure, 51.8% of participants took analgesics. The average procedure duration was 13.9 (SD 15.1) minutes. Pain scores were collected at different stages of the procedure, with median VAS scores ranging from 0 to 5 out of 10. In 50% of cases, the quality of vision during the procedure was rated 9 or higher on a 10-point scale. The full recommended dose of thermogel was administered in 91.7% of cases. The mean gel volume used was 7.0 (SD 1.9) milliliters. Regression analysis showed that younger age and a history of abortions or childbirth were significantly associated with higher gel volume use.

CONCLUSIONS

The anesthetic thermogel demonstrated effectiveness in managing pain during outpatient operative hysteroscopies, with median pain scores ranging from 0 to 5 out of 10 across different stages of the procedure. The gel showed a favorable safety profile, with only 15% of participants reporting adverse effects, all of which were minor and resolved satisfactorily. The high rate of complete gel application (91.7% of cases) and positive physician feedback suggest good tolerability and ease of use. Further research is recommended to evaluate the gel's efficacy in other gynecological procedures and to optimize application protocols based on patient-specific factors such as age and reproductive history.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of an Atraumatic Uterine Cervical Traction Device: A Pilot Study

Introduction: Alignment of the uterine cervix with the vaginal canal is often required during insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD). Currently available instruments are traumatic tenacula, which can cause pain and bleeding and represent an obstacle for certain patients to pursue their medical follow-up. A novel investigational cervical vacuum tenaculum, enables atraumatic traction of the cervix using a semi-circular suction pad, designed to conform to the anatomical shape of the external cervical os. Suction is generated by manually pulling out a sliding tube in a vacuum chamber.

Methods: We performed a single arm non-comparative pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of the cervical vacuum tenaculum in 13 women receiving an IUD. Data on procedural efficacy, safety, patient-reported pain scores at specific time points during IUD insertion procedure and patient satisfaction were collected prospectively.

Results: Insertion of IUD was successful with use of the study device in 7 of the 13 enrolled patients (54%). No bleeding or only limited ecchymosis were caused by the device. No adverse events were reported. Participants reported very little pain (mean Visual Analog Scale <10) when applying the device. Participants who achieved IUD insertion with the device reported strong overall satisfaction with the procedure.

Conclusions: The suction-based atraumatic tenaculum can be used to manipulate the cervix during IUD insertion with satisfactory efficacy and safety. The results of this pilot study support further studies of this device in larger populations comparing with standard single-tooth tenaculum.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT 04441333.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Intrauterine contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

OBJECTIVE

To provide national clinical guidelines focusing on intrauterine contraception.

METHODS

A systematic review of available literature was performed using Pubmed and Cochrane libraries. American, British and Canadian guidelines were considered as well.

RESULTS

Intrauterine contraception (IUC) displays a wide panel of indications, including adolescents, nulliparous, patients living with HIV before AIDS (Grade B) and women with history of ectopic pregnancy (Grade C). Cervical cancer screening should not be modified in women with IUC (Grade B). Bimanual examination and cervix inspection are mandatory before device insertion (Grade B). Patients should not systematically undergo screening for sexually transmitted infections (STI) before device insertion (Grade B). Screening for STI should be preferably done before insertion but it can be performed at the time of device insertion in asymptomatic women (Grade B). Routine antibiotic prophylaxis and premedication are not recommended before insertion (Grade A). A follow-up visit may be offered several weeks after insertion (Professional consensus). Routine pelvic ultrasound examination in not recommended after device insertion (Grade B). In patients with IUC, unscheduled bleeding, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, requires further investigation to rule out complication (Professional agreement). Suspected uterine perforation warrants radiological workup to locate the device (Professional consensus). Laparoscopic approach should be preferred for elective removal of intrauterine device from abdominal cavity (Professional consensus). In case of accidental pregnancy with intrauterine device in situ, ectopic pregnancy should be excluded (Grade B). In case of viable and desired intrauterine pregnancy, intrauterine device removal is recommended if the strings are reachable (Grade C). Detection of Actinomyces-like organisms on pap smear in asymptomatic patients with intrauterine contraception does not require further intervention (Grade B). Immediate removal of intrauterine device is not recommended in case of STI or pelvic inflammatory disease (Grade B). Device removal should be considered in the absence of clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate treatment (Grade B).

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine contraception is a long-acting and reversible contraception method displaying great efficacy and high continuation rate. In contrast, complication rate is low. It should thus be offered to both nulliparous and multiparous women.