Pain Management During Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women: A Scoping Review

This study investigates the various methods of pain management during the insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) in nulliparous women. Currently, the only recommended method of pain management is 800 mg of ibuprofen taken one hour before insertion of the IUD. However, women continue to experience pain during the procedure. A scoping review was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase with inclusion criteria being English peer-reviewed articles from the last 10 years, involving nulliparous women of at least 18 years of age. The research reveals that management to minimize pain during IUD insertion can include oral analgesics, cervical blocks, and cervical softening and dilation with prostaglandins. The effect of pain management when using these techniques was further examined throughout the various steps of IUD placement, including cervical grasping, IUD insertion, and post IUD insertion. Ibuprofen is the current recommended analgesic; however, studies show that there was no significant reduction in pain found when ibuprofen is used. Alternatively, 500 mg of naproxen sodium taken prior to IUD insertion showed a significant reduction in post-IUD insertion pain (p=0.01) but did not show any significant reduction in pain during cervical grasping or during IUD insertion into the uterus. Cervical blocks using 1% lidocaine were shown to decrease pain during cervical gripping (p=0.002) and IUD insertion compared to the control group (p=0.005). The results of cervical blocks differed based on whether 1% lidocaine was injected or if a 2% lidocaine gel was used, but no significance was shown. Furthermore, cervical softening and dilation with dinoprostone 3 mg and misoprostol 3 mg demonstrated a reduction in pain during all stages of IUD insertion and after insertion (p<0.01). Pharmacological interventions with oral analgesics, lidocaine, and prostaglandins, such as dinoprostone and misoprostol, have all demonstrated some level of pain control during the IUD insertion procedure, but the use of prostaglandins and 2% lidocaine gel has been demonstrated to have the most clinically significant effect on pain control. Additionally, there has been some research examining the impact of verbal analgesics, which involves the provider using a calm, soothing voice and slow speech to put the patient at ease, and the role that anxiety about IUD insertion can influence pain, but further research is needed to determine its significance. This research provides valuable insight into enhancing the improvement of pain during and after the insertion of IUDs for nulliparous women.

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.

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/.

Pain scores at the insertion of the 52 MG levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system among nulligravidas and parous women

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the pain scores at the insertion of the 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) among nulligravidas, parous women with previous vaginal delivery and parous women with elective caesarean-delivery without any previous labour or cervix dilation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present research is a prospective, single-cohort study that included 413 women aged 15-49 years who opted for LNG-IUS placement for contraception or treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Women who participated in the present study were not submitted to any pharmacological pain-relieving intervention to perform the procedure. Pain at insertion was evaluated by using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Pain was classified as absent (0), mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). The women were divided as: (1) nulligravidas, (2) parous women with a previous vaginal delivery, or (3) parous women with elective caesarean-delivery without any previous labour or cervix dilation.

RESULTS

Nulligravidas women presented a higher mean pain score, when compared to women with elective caesarean-delivery and women with previous vaginal delivery (6.6 ± 2.0 vs 5.5 ± 2.1 and 3.9 ± 2.4, respectively; p < 0.001). Nulligravidas and women with elective caesarean-delivery were more likely to have pain classified as moderate or severe (in relation to absent or mild) than women with previous vaginal delivery (p < 0.001). Multiple Linear Regression Analysis demonstrated that 29.5% of all variability of the pain score was explained by two predictor/independent variables: nulligravidas or women with elective caesarean and difficulty at IUD insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with previous vaginal delivery had lower pain scores at LNG-IUS insertion when compared to nulligravidas and women with elective caesarean-delivery without any previous labour.

Predictors of severe pain during insertion of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system among nulligravid women

OBJECTIVE

To identify sociodemographic and clinical variables associated with severe pain with levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system (IUS) placement among nulligravid women.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that evaluated intracervical anesthesia before IUS insertion. We assessed factors associated with severe pain (visual analog scale pain score ≥7) immediately after insertion using bivariate and multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 137/300 (45.7%) subjects reported severe pain. In multiple regression analysis, only intracervical anesthesia [RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.80] and a history of dysmenorrhea [RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08-1.72)] were associated with severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Among nulligravid women, a history of dysmenorrhea increases, and intracervical block decreases severe pain during levonorgestrel IUS insertion.

IMPLICATIONS

Dysmenorrhea increases the risk of severe pain at levonorgestrel intrauterine system insertion, while receiving an intracervical lidocaine block decreases this risk. This information can be useful for counseling women prior to device placement and for selecting candidates who may particularly benefit from interventions to reduce pain.

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.

Interventions for the prevention of pain associated with the placement of intrauterine contraceptives: An updated review

A 2013 review found no evidence to support the routine use of pain relief for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) placement; however, fear of pain with placement continues to be a barrier to use for some women. This narrative review set out to identify (1) new evidence that may support routine use of pain management strategies for IUC placement; (2) procedure‐related approaches that may have a positive impact on the pain experience; and (3) factors that may help healthcare professionals identify women at increased risk of pain with IUC placement. A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane library databases revealed 550 citations, from which we identified 43 new and pertinent studies for review. Thirteen randomized clinical trials, published since 2012, described reductions in placement‐related pain with administration of oral and local analgesia (oral ketorolac, local analgesia with different lidocaine formulations) and cervical priming when compared with placebo or controls. Four studies suggested that ultrasound guidance, balloon dilation, and a modified placement device may help to minimize the pain experienced with IUC placement. Eight publications suggested that previous cesarean delivery, timing of insertion relative to menstruation, dysmenorrhea, expected pain, baseline anxiety, and size of insertion tube may affect the pain experienced with IUC placement. Oral and local analgesia and cervical priming can be effective in minimizing IUC placement‐related pain when compared with placebo, but routine use remains subject for debate. Predictive factors may help healthcare professionals to identify women at risk of experiencing pain. Targeted use of effective strategies in these women may be a useful approach while research continues in this area.

Effect of Entonox for pain management in labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aim

Entonox was one of the important methods for pain management in the delivery process. In previous years some studies have assessed the effect of this method in Iran. In this regard, the aim of this study was to systematically review studies addressing the effect of Entonox for pain management in labor.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted in 2016. The required data was collected using keywords such as ”Entonox”, “nitrous oxide”, ”vaginal delivery”, ”pain relief”, “obstetric”, “labor pain”, and “labor analgesia”, from databases including Google scholar, PubMed, Science Direct, Magiran, SID, and Scopus, and hand-searching of related and valid journals and references of articles. Articles published from 2000 to 2016 were searched. To conduct meta-analysis, CMA:2 (Comprehensive Meta-analysis) was used.

Results

Finally, 14 articles were included in the study. Pain relief standard difference in mean between-groups was −1.01 (95% CI: −1.59 to −0.43, Q=148.5, df=8, p=0.02, I²=76) this difference was significant (p<0.05). The overall Apgar score standard difference in mean between-groups (Entonox vs. comparison) was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.23, Q=109.4, df=16, p=0.00, I²=85.3) this difference was significant (p<0.05). The results of mothers’ satisfaction rate show that mothers in Entonox group has a high level of satisfaction rate.

Conclusion

According to results of studies published in Iran, it seems that Entonox is an effective method for pain relief in vaginal delivery, as well as for improving infant Apgar score and mothers’ satisfaction rate. Pain relief through Entonox can be used as a strategy for cesarean section reduction plan in Iran.

Medications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures, insertion success).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined medications to ease interval insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs and copper T IUDs.

RESULTS

From 1855 articles, we identified 15 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Most evidence suggested that misoprostol did not improve provider ease of insertion, reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures or improve insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD (evidence Level I, good to fair). However, one RCT found significantly higher insertion success among women receiving misoprostol prior to a second IUD insertion attempt after failed attempt versus placebo (evidence Level I, good). Two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good to poor), and one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (evidence Level I, fair).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo.

Canadian Contraception Consensus (Part 3 of 4): Chapter 7--Intrauterine Contraception

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for health care providers on the use of contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy and on the promotion of healthy sexuality.

OUTCOMES

Overall efficacy of cited contraceptive methods, assessing reduction in pregnancy rate, safety, ease of use, and side effects; the effect of cited contraceptive methods on sexual health and general well-being; and the relative cost and availability of cited contraceptive methods in Canada.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of Medline and The Cochrane Database from January 1994 to January 2015 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., contraception, sexuality, sexual health) and key words (e.g., contraception, family planning, hormonal contraception, emergency contraception). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies published in English from January 1994 to January 2015. Searches were updated on a regular basis in incorporated in the guideline to June 2015. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALUES

The quality of the evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). CHAPTER 7: INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTION:

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

1. Intrauterine contraceptives are as effective as permanent contraception methods. (II-2) 2. The use of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg by patients taking tamoxifen is not associated with recurrence of breast cancer. (I) 3. Intrauterine contraceptives have a number of noncontraceptive benefits. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) 52 mg significantly decreases menstrual blood loss (I) and dysmenorrhea. (II-2) Both the copper intrauterine device and the LNG-IUS significantly decrease the risk of endometrial cancer. (II-2) 4. The risk of uterine perforation decreases with inserter experience but is higher in postpartum and breastfeeding women. (II-2) 5. The risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is increased slightly in the first month after intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion, but the absolute risk is low. Exposure to sexually transmitted infections and not the IUC itself is responsible for PID occurring after the first month of use. (II-2) 6. Nulliparity is not associated with an increased risk of intrauterine contraceptive expulsion. (II-2) 7. Ectopic pregnancy with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) is rare, but when a pregnancy occurs with an IUC in situ, it is an ectopic pregnancy in 15% to 50% of the cases. (II-2) 8. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, early IUC removal improves outcomes but does not entirely eliminate risks. (II-2) 9. Intrauterine contraceptives do not increase the risk of infertility. (II-2) 10. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher continuation rate compared with insertion at 6 weeks postpartum. (I) 11. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC; 10 minutes postplacental to 48 hours) postpartum or post-Caesarean section is associated with a higher risk of expulsion. (I) The benefit of inserting an IUC immediately postpartum or post-Caesarean section outweighs the disadvantages of increased risk of perforation and expulsion. (II-C) 12. Insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive in breastfeeding women is associated with a higher risk of uterine perforation in the first postpartum year. (II-2) 13. Immediate insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) post-abortion significantly reduces the risk of repeat abortion (II-2) and increases IUC continuation rates at 6 months. (I) 14. Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive insertion does not significantly reduce postinsertion pelvic infection. (I) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Health care professionals should be careful not to restrict access to intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) owing to theoretical or unproven risks. (III-A) Health care professionals should offer IUCs as a first-line method of contraception to both nulliparous and multiparous women. (II-2A) 2. In women seeking intrauterine contraception (IUC) and presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding and/or dysmenorrhea, health care professionals should consider the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system 52 mg over other IUCs. (I-A) 3. Patients with breast cancer taking tamoxifen may consider a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system 52 mg after consultation with their oncologist. (I-A) 4. Women requesting a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or a copper-intrauterine device should be counseled regarding changes in bleeding patterns, sexually transmitted infection risk, and duration of use. (III-A) 5. A health care professional should be reasonably certain that the woman is not pregnant prior to inserting an intrauterine contraceptive at any time during the menstrual cycle. (III-A) 6. Health care providers should consider inserting an intrauterine contraceptive immediately after an induced abortion rather than waiting for an interval insertion. (I-B) 7. In women who conceive with an intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) in place, the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy should be excluded as arly as possible. (II-2A) Once an ectopic pregnancy has been excluded, the IUC should be removed without an invasive procedure. The IUC may be removed at the time of a surgical termination. (II-2B) 8. In the case of pelvic inflammatory disease, it is not necessary to remove the intrauterine contraceptive unless there is no clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate antibiotic treatment. (II-2B) 9. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) insertion is not indicated. (I-B) Health care providers should perform sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing in women at high risk of STI at the time of IUC insertion. If the test is positive for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea, the woman should be appropriately treated postinsertion and the IUC can remain in situ. (II-2B) 10. Unscheduled bleeding in intrauterine contraception users, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, should be investigated to rule out infection, pregnancy, gynecological pathology, expulsion or malposition. (III-A)

Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Interventions for pain control during IUC insertion include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local cervical anesthetics, and cervical ripening agents such as misoprostol.

OBJECTIVES

To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for reducing IUC insertion-related pain

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The most recent search was 22 June 2015. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that evaluated an intervention for preventing IUC insertion-related pain. The comparison could have been a placebo, no intervention, or another active intervention. The primary outcomes were self-reported pain at tenaculum placement, during IUC insertion, and after IUC insertion (up to six hours).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data from eligible trials. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. In meta-analysis of trials with different measurement scales, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials with 5710 participants total; 29 were published from 2010 to 2015. Studies examined lidocaine, misoprostol, NSAIDs, and other interventions. Here we synthesize results from trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate- or high-quality evidence.For lidocaine, meta-analysis showed topical 2% gel had no effect on pain at tenaculum placement (two trials) or on pain during IUC insertion (three trials). Other formulations were effective compared with placebo in individual trials. Mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower with lidocaine and prilocaine cream (MD -1.96, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.92). Among nulliparous women, topical 4% formulation showed lower scores for IUC-insertion pain assessed within 10 minutes (MD -15.90, 95% CI -22.77 to -9.03) and at 30 minutes later (MD -11.10, 95% CI -19.05 to -3.15). Among parous women, IUC-insertion pain was lower with 10% spray (median 1.00 versus 3.00). Compared with no intervention, pain at tenaculum placement was lower with 1% paracervical block (median 12 versus 28).For misoprostol, meta-analysis showed a higher mean score for IUC insertion compared with placebo (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.46; four studies). In meta-analysis, cramping was more likely with misoprostol (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.76; four studies). A trial with nulliparous women found a higher score for IUC-insertion pain with misoprostol (median 46 versus 34). Pain before leaving the clinic was higher for misoprostol in two trials with nulliparous women (MD 7.60, 95% CI 6.48 to 8.72; medians 35.5 versus 20.5). In one trial with nulliparous women, moderate or severe pain at IUC insertion was less likely with misoprostol (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55). In the same trial, the misoprostol group was more likely to rate the experience favorably. Within two trials of misoprostol plus diclofenac, shivering, headache, or abdominal pain were more likely with misoprostol. Participants had no vaginal delivery. One trial showed the misoprostol group less likely to choose or recommend the treatment.Among multiparous women, mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower for tramadol 50 mg versus naproxen 550 mg (MD -0.63, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.32) and for naproxen versus placebo (MD -1.94, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.53). The naproxen group was less likely than the placebo group to report the insertion experience as unpleasant and not want the medication in the future. An older trial showed repeated doses of naproxen 300 mg led to lower pain scores at one hour (MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.41) and two hours (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.32) after insertion. Most women were nulliparous and also had lidocaine paracervical block.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all trials used modern IUC. Most effectiveness evidence was of moderate quality, having come from single trials. Lidocaine 2% gel, misoprostol, and most NSAIDs did not help reduce pain. Some lidocaine formulations, tramadol, and naproxen had some effect on reducing IUC insertion-related pain in specific groups. The ineffective interventions do not need further research.