Paracervical Block Efficacy in Office Hysteroscopic Sterilization: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Design of a syringe extension device (Chloe SED®) for low-resource settings in sub-Saharan Africa: a circular economy approach

Underfunded healthcare infrastructures in low-resource settings in sub-Saharan Africa have resulted in a lack of medical devices crucial to provide healthcare for all. A representative example of this scenario is medical devices to administer paracervical blocks during gynaecological procedures. Devices needed for this procedure are usually unavailable or expensive. Without these devices, providing paracervical blocks for women in need is impossible resulting in compromising the quality of care for women requiring gynaecological procedures such as loop electrosurgical excision, treatment of miscarriage, or incomplete abortion. In that perspective, interventions that can be integrated into the healthcare system in low-resource settings to provide women needing paracervical blocks remain urgent. Based on a context-specific approach while leveraging circular economy design principles, this research catalogues the development of a new medical device called Chloe SED® that can be used to support the provision of paracervical blocks. Chloe SED®, priced at US$ 1.5 per device when produced in polypropylene, US$ 10 in polyetheretherketone, and US$ 15 in aluminium, is attached to any 10-cc syringe in low-resource settings to provide paracervical blocks. The device is designed for durability, repairability, maintainability, upgradeability, and recyclability to address environmental sustainability issues in the healthcare domain. Achieving the design of Chloe SED® from a context-specific and circular economy approach revealed correlations between the material choice to manufacture the device, the device's initial cost, product durability and reuse cycle, reprocessing method and cost, and environmental impact. These correlations can be seen as interconnected conflicting or divergent trade-offs that need to be continually assessed to deliver a medical device that provides healthcare for all with limited environmental impact. The study findings are intended to be seen as efforts to make available medical devices to support women's access to reproductive health services.

The Effect of Forced Cough to Minimize Pain and Discomfort at the Time of Colposcopy-Guided Cervical Biopsy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine whether forced cough during colposcopy-guided cervical biopsy affected pain and anxiety levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted at the University Hospital (Newark, NJ) Ambulatory Care Center from December 2016 to June 2018 and evaluated 110 patients at the time of a colposcopy-guided cervical biopsy. Study patients were randomized to either cough or no cough group during the biopsy procedure. Pain level was assessed using a visual analog pain scale before, during, and immediately after a colposcopy-guided cervical biopsy. Study patients also completed a standardized anxiety survey before and after the procedure. T tests, Pearson χ, or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel were used to compare baseline characteristics between the cough and no cough groups. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify potential confounders and then compare pain levels across both groups.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between the cough and no cough group when analyzed for each demographic variable even when confounders were accounted for. The anxiety scores for both study groups before and after the procedure were similar and not significantly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a trend that cough reduced pain associated with the colposcopy-guided cervical biopsy but did not reach statistical significance. A similar outcome was observed in anxiety level, where anxiety was reduced in the cough group but was not statistically significant as compared with the no cough group. Further studies are necessary to assess various modalities in reducing pain and anxiety associated with colposcopy-guided cervical biopsy.

Local anaesthesia for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types and routes of administration of local anaesthetic for pain control during and after office hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until October 2019, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials investigating the use of a local anaesthetic compared to a control, for pain relief in women undergoing diagnostic or operative office hysteroscopy. Average pain scores and data regarding side-effects, feasibility, complications, acceptability and satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 612 citations. A total of 37 studies were included for systematic review, of which data from 20 studies were used for meta-analysis. Local anaesthesia was associated with significantly reduced pain during (SMD -0.57, 95 % CI -0.79 to -0.34) and after (SMD -0.30, 95 % CI -0.54 to -0.06) office hysteroscopy but did not reduce vasovagal episodes (OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.50-1.09). A reduction in intra-procedural pain was observed regardless of type or route of administration. Local anaesthesia did not significantly reduce the risk of procedural failure (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.47-1.11). Insufficient data regarding complications, acceptability and satisfaction were available for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Local anaesthesia via any route of genital tract administration, should be considered when undertaking office diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy to reduce pain during and after the procedure. Further research is needed to understand whether the pain control benefits of local anaesthesia remain apparent with vaginoscopic approaches to office hysteroscopy that avoid genital tract instrumentation.

Deep Sedation or Paracervical Block for Daycare Gynecological Procedures: A Prospective, Comparative Study

Context:

Many minor gynecological procedures are done for diagnostic and therapeutic reasons. A balance has to be struck between ability to discharge a patient at the earliest with minimum procedure-related discomfort to ensure patient safety as well as satisfaction.

Aim:

This prospective randomized study was designed to compare deep sedation versus paracervical block for minor gynecological surgeries comparing the time to discharge readiness, pain after the procedure, and overall patient satisfaction.

Setting and Design:

This prospective randomized comparative study was conducted at a tertiary level hospital after institutional ethics committee approval and registry of trial at CTRI (India).

Methods:

Seventy young women underwent minor gynecological procedures under these two modes of anesthesia. Time to discharge readiness from hospital to home was assessed using modified postanesthesia discharge score system (PADSS). Pain after procedure as well as patient satisfaction was evaluated. Patients were also asked whether they would recommend the same anesthetic technique for the procedure in the future. Answers were noted on a Likert scale.

Results:

Patients were ready to be discharged faster in deep sedation group compared to paracervical block group based upon modified PADSS score (1 h 9.6 min vs. 1 h 18 min) (P = 0.005). Pain in the perioperative period was analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and found to be significantly lesser in deep sedation group when considered till 80 min after surgery. The mean satisfaction score in patients who underwent deep sedation was 91.24 (standard deviation [SD] 2.8) compared to patients given paracervical block which was low at 64.67 (SD 15.8). All patients given deep sedation were ready to recommend the anesthesia technique as compared to only 53.3% of patients who were given paracervical block.

Conclusions:

Deep sedation may be preferred over paracervical block for daycare minor gynecological procedures.

Evaluation of Paracervical Block and IV Sedation for Pain Management during Hysteroscopic Polypectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of paracervical block (PB) and IV sedation (IVS) on women's pain perception during operative hysteroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 84 patients with uterine polyps were randomized to either PB or IV sedation or general anesthesia (GA) as control group. In PB group, the patients received oral diazepam 10 mg and 100 mg diclofenac Na suppository 60 min before surgery and 10 cc of 2% buffered lidocaine was injected at cervix. Conscious sedation was performed with the IV administration of 2-3 mg/kg/h propofol 1% and midazolam 0.02 mg/kg and fentanyl (1-2 μg/kg) with o2 4-5 lit/min via face mask.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups on VAS score at 3 hours after operation (PB: 1.22 ± (1.31), IVS: 1.10 ± (1.68), GA: 1.29 ± (2.03), P = 0.671) and during recovery (PB: 0.85 ± (1.06), IVS: 0.68 ± (1.33), GA: 1.21 ± (2.04), P = 0.458). There was no difference between PB (3.33 ± (2.81)) and IVS (2.31 ± (2.63)) groups at hysteroscopy (P = 0.182). Patients undergoing IVS reported lower VAS score than PB group at dilation and curettage, although the difference was not statistically significant (PB: 2.59 ± (1.78), IVS: 1.72 ± (2.34), P = 0.051). Moreover, patients undergoing IVS obtained lower VAS score than PB group at polypectomy, while the difference was not statistically significant (PB: 1.81 ± (1.52), IVS: 1.10 ± (1.32), P = 0.073).

CONCLUSION

The finding of the present study revealed that IVS and PB showed the same effect in reducing pain during and after gynecological surgical procedures. The study was registered in Iranian Registry of Clinical Trial with the number IRCT2016031426855N3, on April 28, 2016.

A Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Essure® Procedural Placement Success Rates on First Attempt

Background: The Essure® (Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Leverkusen, Germany) female sterilization procedure entails using a hysteroscope to guide a microinsert into the Fallopian tube openings. Failed placement can lead to patient dissatisfaction, repeat procedures, unintended or ectopic pregnancy, perforation of internal organs, or need for subsequent medical interventions. Additional interventions increase women's health risks, and costs for patients and the health care industry. Demonstrated successful placement rates are 63%-100%. To date, there have not been any systematic analyses of variables associated with placement rates. Objectives: The aims of this review were: (1) to estimate the average rate of successful bilateral Essure microinsert placement on first attempt; and (2) to identify variables associated with successful placement. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted on 64 published studies and 19 variables. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, all published studies between November 2001 and February 2015 were reviewed. The studies were taken from from PubMed and Google Scholar, and by using the the "snowball" method that reported variables associated with successful bilateral Essure placement rates. Results: The weighted average rate of successful bilateral microinsert placement on first attempt was 92% (0.92 [95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.931]). Variables associated with successful placements were: (1) newer device models; (2) higher body mass index; and (3) a higher percent of patients who received local anesthesia. Conclusions: The data gathered for this review indicate that the highest bilateral success rates may be obtained by utilizing the newest Essure device model with local anesthesia in heavier patients. More standardized data reporting in published Essure studies is recommended. (J GYNECOL SURG 31:308).

Randomized comparative trial of cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of polyps and myomas

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of two cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine polyps and myomas using the MyoSure^® device.

Patients and methods

This was a randomized, comparative treatment trial conducted by five private Obstetrics and Gynecology practices in the USA. Forty premenopausal women aged 18 years and older were randomized to receive either a combination para/intracervical block protocol of 37 cc local anesthetic administered at six injections sites in association with the application of topic 1% lidocaine gel, or an intracervical block protocol of 22 cc local anesthetic administered at three injections sites without topical anesthetic, for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine polyps and/or a single type 0 or type 1 submucosal myoma ≤3 cm. The main outcomes were a composite measure of procedure-related pain and pain during the postoperative recovery period, assessed by the Wong-Baker Faces Rating Scale (0= no pain to 10= maximum pain). The lesion characteristics, procedure time, and adverse events were summarized.

Results

A total of 17 polyps and eight myomas were removed in the para/intracervical block group, with diameters of 1.3±0.5 cm and 1.8±0.8 cm, respectively. In the intracervical block group, 25 polyps with a mean diameter of 1.2±0.7 cm and 7 myomas with a mean diameter of 1.9±0.9 cm were removed. The mean tissue resection time was 1.2±2.0 minutes and 1.2±1.4 minutes for the para/intracervical and intracervical block groups, respectively. The mean composite procedure-related pain score was low for both cervical block protocols, 1.3±1.4 in the para/intracervical block group vs 2.1±1.5 in the intracervical block group. During the postoperative recovery period, the mean pain scores were 0.3±0.7 vs 1.2±1.7 for the para/intracervical and intracervical block groups, respectively. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusion

The MyoSure procedure for removal of polyps and myomas was well tolerated, with low pain scores reported for both the para/intracervical and intracervical block protocols.

Hysteroscopy and contraception

The Essure method is the only available hysteroscopic sterilisation method. A 4-cm device is placed in the fallopian tubes, which then induces an inflammatory reaction that causes occlusion. The method has a high successful placement rate and high effectiveness, and it can be performed in an office setting without anaesthesia. Three months after the procedure, a confirmation test has to be conducted to assure a correct position of the micro-inserts and tubal occlusion. This test can be performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG), plain X-ray or ultrasound. Pregnancies reported after Essure sterilisation are, in a majority, related to non-adherence to the follow-up protocol or misreading of the confirmation test. A majority of the pregnancies occurred after HSGs that were determined to have been misinterpreted, including missed expulsion or perforation of the micro-insert. Other complications such as ectopic pregnancy and allergic reaction to the micro-inserts seem to have been described to be of low incidence.

Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention

BACKGROUND

Cervical dilatation and uterine intervention can be performed under sedation, local or general anaesthesia for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. Many gynaecologists use paracervical local anaesthesia but its effectiveness is unclear. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness and safety of paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention, versus no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, sedation and systemic analgesia, and general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We reran our search to August 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013), and reference lists of articles. The original search was performed in January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or controlled clinical studies involving women who underwent cervical dilatation and uterine intervention for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. We included studies which compared paracervical anaesthesia with no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, systemic sedation and analgesia, or general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated the studies, extracted data, and checked and entered data into Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes nine new studies, in total 26 studies with 28 comparisons and involving 2790 participants. No study of local paracervical versus general anaesthesia met our criteria. Ten studies compared local anaesthetic versus placebo. Paracervical local anaesthetic (PLA) reduced pain on cervical dilatation with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.37 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.58) and a relative risk (RR) of severe pain of 0.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). PLA also reduced abdominal pain during, but not after, uterine intervention (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19); there was no evidence of any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Comparisons against no treatment did not demonstrate any effect of PLA. Five studies compared paracervical block with uterosacral block, intracervical block, or intrauterine topical anaesthesia. Two of these studies showed no significant difference in pain during the procedure. Compared to intrauterine instillation, PLA slightly reduced severe pain (from 8.3 to 7.6 on a 10-point scale), which may be negligible. Six studies compared PLA with sedation. There were no statistically significant differences in pain during or after the procedure, postoperative analgesia requirement, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and the operator's perception of analgesia. We performed risk of bias assessment using six domains and found that more than half of the included studies had low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that no technique provided reliable pain control in the 26 included studies. Some studies reported that women experienced severe pain (mean scores of 7 to 9 out of 10) during uterine intervention, irrespective of the analgesic technique used. We concluded that the available evidence fails to show whether paracervical block is inferior, equivalent, or superior to alternative analgesic techniques in terms of efficacy and safety for women undergoing cervical dilatation and uterine interventions. We suggest that woman are likely to consider the rates and severity of pain during uterine interventions when performed awake to be unacceptable in the absence of neuraxial blockade, which are unaltered by paracervical block.

Hysteroscopic sterilization success in outpatient vs office setting is not affected by patient or procedural characteristics

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine factors associated with hysteroscopic sterilization success and whether it differs between the operating room and office settings.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Major university medical center.

PATIENTS

Six hundred thirty-eight women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2011.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Data collected included age, body mass index, previous office procedures, previous cesarean section, and presence of myomas or retroverted uterus. Place of surgery, experience of surgeon, insurance type, bilateral device placement, compliance with hysterosalpingography, and confirmation of occlusion were also recorded. Bivariate analysis of patient characteristics between groups was performed using χ(2) and independent t tests, and identified confounders and associated variables. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression to assess for association and to adjust for confounders. Procedures were performed in the operating room (57%) or in the office (43%). There was no association between success in bilateral device placement or occlusion and any patient characteristic, regardless of surgery setting. Private insurance, patient age, and performance of procedures in the office setting were positively associated with likelihood of compliance with hysterosalpingography.

CONCLUSION

Successful device placement and tubal occlusion are independent of patient age, body mass index, or setting of the procedure. Association between insurance type and completing hysterosalpingography illustrates an important public health problem. Patients who fail to undergo hysterosalpingography to confirm tubal occlusion may unknowingly be at risk of pregnancy and increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.

Pain management for tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy involves inserting a foreign body in both fallopian tubes. Over a three-month period, the tubal lumen is occluded by tissue growth stimulated by the insert. Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy has advantages over laparoscopy or mini-laparotomy, including the avoidance of abdominal incisions and the convenience of performing the procedure in an office-based setting. Pain, an important determinant of procedure acceptability, can be a concern when tubal sterilization is performed in the office.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions to decrease pain during tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

From January to March 2011, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL for relevant trials. We searched for current trials via Clinicaltrials.gov. We also examined the reference lists of pertinent articles and wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that evaluated pain management at the time of sterilization by hysteroscopy. The intervention could be compared to another intervention or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initial data were extracted by one review author. A second review author verified all extracted data. Whenever possible, the analysis was conducted with all women randomized and in the original assigned groups. Data were analyzed using RevMan software. Pain was measured using either a 10-cm or 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). When pain was measured at multiple points during the procedure, the overall pain score was considered the primary treatment effect. If this was not measured, a summation of all pain scores for the procedure was considered to be the primary treatment effect. For continuous variables, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval was computed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 167. Using a 10-cm VAS to measure pain, no significant difference emerged in overall pain for the entire procedure between women who received a paracervical block with lidocaine versus normal saline (mean difference -0.77; 95% CI -2.67 to 1.13). No significant difference in pain score was noted at the time of injection of study solution to the anterior lip of the cervix (mean difference -0.6; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.1), placement of the device in the tubal ostia (mean difference -0.60; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.7), and postprocedure pain (mean difference 0.2; 95% CI -0.8 to 1.2). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8 minutes) and successful bilateral placement (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.19 to 5.28) was not significantly different between groups. During certain portions of the procedure, such as placement of the tenaculum (mean difference -2.03; 95% CI -2.88 to -1.18), administration of the paracervical block (mean difference -1.92; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.00), and passage of the hysteroscope through the external (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.30 to -1.32) and internal os (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.39 to -1.23), use of paracervical block with lidocaine resulted in lower pain scores.Using a 600-point scale calculated by adding 100-point VAS scores from six different portions of the procedure, no significant difference emerged in overall pain between women who received intravenous conscious sedation versus oral analgesia (mean difference -23.00; CI -62.02 to 16.02). Using a 100-point VAS, no significant difference emerged at the time of speculum insertion (mean difference 4.0; 95% CI -4.0 to 12.0), cervical injection of lidocaine (mean difference -1.8; 95% CI -10.0 to 6.4), insertion of the hysteroscope (mean difference -8.7; 95% CI -19.7 to 2.3), placement of the first device (mean difference -4.4; 95% CI -15.8 to 7.0), and removal of the hysteroscope (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI -3.9 to 5.7). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.0 to 1.6 minutes) and time in the recovery area (mean difference 3.6 minutes; 95% CI -11.3 to 18.5 minutes) was not different between groups. However, women who received intravenous conscious sedation had lower pain scores at the time of insertion of the second tubal device compared to women who received oral analgesia (mean difference -12.60; CI -23.98 to -1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available literature is insufficient to determine the appropriate analgesia or anesthesia for sterilization by hysteroscopy. Compared to paracervical block with normal saline, paracervical block with lidocaine reduced pain during some portions of the procedure. Intravenous sedation resulted in lower pain scores during insertion of the second tubal device. However, neither paracervical block with lidocaine nor conscious sedation significantly reduced overall pain scores for sterilization by hysteroscopy.

Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the Essure™ procedure

The Essure™ system for permanent contraception was developed as a less invasive method of female sterilization. Placement of the Essure™ coil involves a hysteroscopic transcervical technique. This procedure can be done in a variety of settings and with a range of anesthetic options. More than eight years have passed since the US Food and Drug Administration approval of Essure™. Much research has been done to evaluate placement success, adverse outcomes, satisfaction, pain, and the contraceptive efficacy of the Essure™. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction with this new sterilization technique.