Lidocaine 10% spray to the cervix reduces pain during intrauterine device insertion: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Mepivacaine instillation for pain reduction during intrauterine device placement in nulliparous women: a double-blinded randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain associated with intrauterine device (IUD) placement has been identified as a significant barrier to the adoption of long-acting reversible contraception, contributing to lower utilization of the most effective reversible contraceptive methods.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether instillation of intrauterine mepivacaine before IUD placement alleviates pain more effectively than a placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving nulliparous women undergoing IUD placement. An intrauterine instillation of 10 mL of 20 mg/mL mepivacaine or 0.9 mg/mL sodium chloride was administrated through a hydrosonography catheter 2 minutes prior to IUD placement. Pain scores were assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) at prespecified time points. Primary outcome measured the difference in VAS pain scores between the intervention group and the placebo group during IUD placement. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain scores at instillation and 10 minutes after placement, tolerability of the placement pain, as well as acceptability of the analgesia method.

RESULTS

We enrolled 151 participants, with 76 assigned to the mepivacaine group and 75 to the placebo group. The mean VAS pain score during IUD placement showed a difference of 13.3 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.75-20.87; P<.001): the mepivacaine group had a mean of 53.9 mm (standard deviation [SD] 22.8), while the placebo group had a mean of 67.2 mm (SD 22.4). After adjusting for each individual provider's impact, the difference in mean pain scores remained statistically significant (12.2 mm 95% CI 4.85-19.62; P<.001). A greater proportion of women in the intervention group reported tolerable pain during placement with 70/75 participants (93.3%) compared to 53/66 participants (80.3%) in the placebo group (P=.021).

CONCLUSION

The intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine results in statistically significant reduction in pain score among nulliparous women during IUD placement. Although the precise clinical impact of this pain reduction method remains uncertain, the observed reduction in pain score result in a higher proportion of women reporting tolerable pain. This finding and the high acceptance as a pain reduction method thereby suggests clinical relevance. Intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine is a possible strategy to increase IUD utilization, particularly among nulliparous women who are at high risk of unintended pregnancy.

Anesthesia Usage and Pain Management in Colposcopy: A Scoping Review of Efficacy and Approaches

Colposcopies are diagnostic procedures conducted to detect precancerous and cancerous lesions on the cervix and are often done as a sequelae of histological abnormalities found on cervical screening exams, such as precancerous abnormalities, positive human papillomavirus (HPV) results, or a past medical history of cervical dysplasia. Colposcopies, while often necessary to ensure the health of the patient, can induce a lot of anxiety and distress in the time leading up to the procedure, often due to fear of the procedure itself, anticipation of pain, as well as fear regarding the results of the colposcopy. Experiencing physical pain and discomfort during gynecological procedures can negatively influence a woman's willingness to comply with future medical appointments, often exacerbating feelings of anxiety and distress. A systematic search was conducted to identify the relevant articles published within the last 10 years pertaining to pain management in colposcopy procedures. The search strategy aimed to identify studies involving the utilization of anesthesia or analgesics for pain management or prevention during colposcopy, with a focus on randomized controlled trials. This systematic review aims to review the existing literature on the use of anesthetics in colposcopy and its effect on patient outcomes, investigating the current strategies of anesthesia use in the setting of a colposcopy, as well as their efficacy in improving pain.

Lidocaine spray vs mepivacaine local infiltration for suturing 1st/2nd grade perineal lacerations: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Perineal lacerations are a very common complication of post-partum. Usually, the repair of 1st and 2nd-grade lacerations is performed after the administration of local anesthesia. Despite the great relevance of the problem, there are only a few studies about the best choice of local anesthetic to use during suturing. We performed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of a local anesthetic spray during the suturing of perineal lacerations in the post-partum.

METHODS

We compared the spray with the standard technique, which involves the infiltration of lacerated tissues, using the NRS scale. 136 eligible women who had given birth at University Hospital of Udine were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive nebulization of Lidocaine hydrochloride 10% spray (experimental group) or subcutaneous/submucosal infiltration of mepivacaine hydrochloride (control group) during suturing of perineal laceration.

RESULTS

The lacerations included 84 1st-grade perineal traumas (61.7%) and 52 2nd-grade perineal traumas (38.2%). All the procedures were successfully completed without severe complications or serious adverse reactions. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood losses or total procedure time. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of NRS to none of the intervals considered. Regarding the application of the spray in the B group, in 36 cases (52.9%) it was necessary to improve the number of puffs previously supposed to be sufficient (5 puffs). Just in 3 cases, an additional injection was necessary (4.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that lidocaine spray alone can be used as a first line of local anesthetic during the closure of I-II-grade perineal lacerations, as it has comparable efficacy to mepivacaine infiltration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was recorded on https://clinicaltrials.gov . Identification number: NCT05201313. First registration date: 21/01/2022. Unique Protocol ID: 0042698/P/GEN/ARCS.

Advancing Pain Management Protocols for Intrauterine Device Insertion: Integrating Evidence-Based Strategies Into Clinical Practice

The discomfort and anxiety associated with the intrauterine device (IUD) insertion process is a significant barrier to its adoption as a form of contraception despite its high efficacy. This study aimed to classify and identify methods for minimizing pain and anxiety in IUD implantation in women below the age of 49. A search of publications from online databases, PubMed and Google Scholar, revealed 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria. An analysis of the selected studies showed that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures effectively minimized patient discomfort associated with IUD insertion. Of the 14 studies, 12 evaluated pharmacological methods for pain management in IUD insertion, while two studies assessed non-pharmacological methods. The results showed that although the IUD is more effective than other forms of contraceptives, fear of pain related to the insertion process is one of the most significant barriers to the use of an IUD among women. Most studies identified pharmacological methods of pain management for IUD insertion, highlighting a need for more research on non-pharmacological methods to improve patient experiences and reduce associated fears.

Efficacy of Lidocaine Spray for Pain Reduction during Colposcopy-Directed Cervical Biopsies: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine spray in reducing the pain during colposcopy-directed cervical biopsy (CDB). Methods: From December 2017 to February 2019, 312 women undergoing CDBs were enrolled. The participants were randomized to three groups: group 1 (lidocaine spray), in which lidocaine spray was applied thoroughly to the cervix; group 2 (placebo), in which normal saline was applied thoroughly to the cervix; and group 3 (control), in which no anesthetic agent was applied to the cervix. Each woman completed a 10 cm visual analog scale to classify the subjective pain experience at three time points: baseline, immediately after biopsy, and 10 min after the procedure. The primary outcome of this study was the biopsy pain score. Results: The 312 enrolled women were randomly assigned to the three groups, amounting to 104 women per group. The clinical and pathological characteristics of the participants in all groups were comparable. The baseline, the biopsy, and the post-procedure pain scores were comparable among the three groups. There was a significant increase in the pain score from baseline to biopsy and from baseline to post-procedure in each group. The pain-score changes from baseline to biopsy in the lidocaine spray group significantly decreased when compared with the normal saline group (<0.001), and tended to decrease, though not significantly (p = 0.06), when compared with the control group. No complication with the intervention was observed. Conclusions: The application of lidocaine spray to the cervix has the benefit of reducing the pain associated with CDBs by a small amount. However, the intervention is safe and may be considered in nulliparous and/or overly anxious women undergoing the procedure.

Differing Approaches to Pain Management for Intrauterine Device Insertion and Maintenance: A Scoping Review

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are considered a reliable contraceptive option for women, but they can come with side effects. There is a disconnect in standard guidelines for IUD insertion within and without the U.S. The objective of this review was to address a gap in the literature regarding official procedures for pain management during IUD implantation. This scoping review was initiated using keywords to extract relevant articles from multiple databases: U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (PubMed), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE, Ovid). Initially, 457 articles were identified and after a rigorous screening and selection process, 37 articles were chosen to be further assessed to ascertain if they met the study's inclusion criteria. Those 37 articles were further evaluated fully to check for relevancy. From that process, 19 articles were chosen for the review, and all passed quality assessment evaluations using the JB Appraisal Tools. To best address the research question, the data from the 19 articles were divided into three categories: 1) circumstantial factors, 2) non-pharmacological methods, and 3) pharmacological methods. Circumstantially, women with previous vaginal deliveries experienced the lowest pain during the procedure, and nulligravid (never pregnant) women experienced the most pain. Lower pain scores were reported by lactating women compared to non-lactating. Black women experienced the most anticipated pain compared to other races. Regarding non-pharmacological methods, different insertion techniques, tools, and the use of a cold compress were found to not affect the level of pain during IUD insertion. Lastly, it was shown that pharmacological methods such as lidocaine gel, lidocaine paracervical block, and lidocaine combined with either diclofenac or prilocaine decreased pain scores at different time stamps of the procedure. Also, oral ketorolac and a vaginal combination of misoprostol and dinoprostone helped reduce pain. Findings from this scoping review revealed a lack of uniformity across practices when performing IUD insertions, possibly due to differences in procedures across circumstantial factors, non-pharmacological methods, and pharmacological methods. More research is needed to investigate the intricacies of pain with IUD insertion. Moving forward, especially following a potential increase in the use of IUDs after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, establishing this gap may lead to a more refined standardized protocol to mitigate pain with IUD insertions.

10% lidocaine spray for pain control during intrauterine device insertion: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Various medications have been investigated for their efficacy in pain reduction during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, but there is currently no standard recommendation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of 10% lidocaine spray in reducing pain during copper-containing intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) insertion.

METHODS

This study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Reproductive-age women were randomised at a 1:1 ratio into 10% lidocaine spray or placebo spray group. A 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain during several steps of the IUD insertion procedure, and after the procedure.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four women were included and 62 women were randomised in each group. Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The 10% lidocaine spray group demonstrated significantly lower median VAS immediately after IUD insertion than the placebo group (2.95 (IQR=1.00-5.63) vs 5.00 (IQR=3.35-7.00), respectively; p=0.002). Similarly, women receiving 10% lidocaine spray reported significantly lower median VAS than those receiving placebo during tenaculum use and uterine sounding. The maximum median VAS occurred immediately after Cu-IUD insertion. The proportion of women who reported VAS≥4 during uterine sounding and after IUD placement was significantly lower in the 10% lidocaine group than in the placebo group (p<0.05). Median change in VAS from baseline to IUD placement was significantly different between 10% lidocaine spray group and placebo group (1.85 (IQR=0.08-4.03) vs 3.6 (IQR=2.40-5.80), respectively; p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

10% lidocaine spray was found to be an effective local anaesthetic method for reducing pain during insertion of Cu-IUD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03870711.

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.

Providing Long-acting Reversible Contraception to Adolescents: A Review

Unintended teen pregnancy continues to be a problem in the United States which has the highest rate of adolescent pregnancy among developed nations. Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has much higher continuation rates compared with moderately effective reversible contraception; however, moderately effective reversible contraception is more commonly used by adolescents. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend LARC as first-line contraception for adolescents. Clinicians providing contraception to adolescents should be knowledgeable of LARC indications, side effects, initiation guidelines, management of adverse reactions, and adolescent specific issues regarding LARC counseling, initiation, and continuation.

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.

Intrauterine Device Insertion Procedure Duration in Adolescent and Young Adult Women

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intrauterine device (IUD) utilization in the United States is low among adolescent and young adult women. Longer procedure duration has been proposed as one potential barrier to IUD insertion in this population. We hypothesized that procedure duration would be longer in adolescents compared to young adult women.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study was a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of a lidocaine vs sham paracervical nerve block for pain control during levonorgestrel 13.5 mg IUD insertion. Adolescent and young adult women ages 14-22 years were recruited from 3 outpatient academic sites in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain scores were recorded at 7 steps during the procedure from speculum insertion through removal. Time stamps associated with each step were used to calculate the overall procedure duration. Cumulative IUD insertion procedure duration was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Ninety-five women enrolled. Nineteen (19/95, 20%) were ages 14-17 and 76 (76/95, 80%) were ages 18-22 years. The median procedure duration (seconds ± interquartile range) was longer for adolescents than for young adults (555 ± 428 seconds vs 383 ± 196 seconds; P = .008). After adjusting for study site, the difference in expected median procedure duration between age groups was not significant (P = .3832).

CONCLUSION

The difference in duration of IUD insertion procedures in adolescent and young adult women is not clinically or statistically significant. Providers should not withhold IUDs from appropriate adolescent and young adult women on the basis of age alone.

Self-administered vaginal lidocaine gel for pain management with intrauterine device insertion: a blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A major barrier to intrauterine device use is fear of pain during insertion. Trials exploring analgesic interventions for intrauterine device insertion have yielded mixed results, and no standardized pain management guidelines currently exist for this procedure. In an abortion-related study, self-administered lidocaine gel over a prolonged time interval showed promise as a method of pain control.

OBJECTIVE(S)

The objective of the study was to assess pain control with intrauterine device insertion after patient-administered lidocaine gel compared with placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized, blinded trial of women undergoing levonorgestrel or copper intrauterine device insertion in an outpatient gynecology clinic between July 2016 and April 2017. Participants self-administered either 20 mL of 2% lidocaine gel or placebo gel vaginally at least 15 minutes prior to intrauterine device insertion. No other analgesics were administered. The primary outcome was pain during intrauterine device insertion, measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 being no pain and 100 being worst pain imaginable). Secondary outcomes included anticipated and baseline pain and pain with speculum insertion and tenaculum placement. In a postprocedure questionnaire, participants reported acceptability of vaginal gel and willingness to wait for pain control. Median values were assessed because of the nonnormal distribution of visual analog scale scores using the Mann-Whitney U test. Predictors of intrauterine device insertion pain were assessed using a multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

In total, 220 women were randomized and 215 were included in analysis (108 in lidocaine gel, 107 in placebo gel groups). Median (range) time from gel administration to speculum insertion was 21 (14-74) and 20 (12-43) minutes in the lidocaine and placebo groups, respectively (P = .13). The median pain scores during intrauterine device insertion were not significantly different: 65 (1-99) mm in the lidocaine group and 59 (5-100) mm in the placebo group (P = .09). Among secondary outcome time points, only median pain scores at speculum insertion were significantly different between the lidocaine and placebo groups (7 [0-81] mm vs 11 [0-80] mm, respectively; P = .046). Anticipated pain and menstrual pain were both predictors of pain with intrauterine device insertion. The majority of women in both groups found the amount of vaginal leakage following gel insertion to be acceptable (>80%). Ninety-two percent of participants (n = 194) stated they would be willing to wait before intrauterine device placement for a potential analgesic effect.

CONCLUSION

Self-administered lidocaine gel at least 15 minutes before intrauterine device insertion does not appear to reduce pain compared with placebo but may help with speculum insertion. We found that women are willing to extend visit time to gain pain control. Self-administration of local anesthetic is acceptable to patients and should be considered in future research.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) still remain underused in adolescents. Pain during insertion might prevent adolescents to opt for a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and critically appraise published data with respect to the efficacy of various substances (analgesics or not) in preventing pain during levonorgestrel-releasing IUD insertion in nulliparous women as a proxy for adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comprehensive computerized systematic literature search of all English language studies between 2006 and 2016 was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar. Relevant article reference lists were manually searched.

RESULTS

The computerized database search revealed 31 citations of relevance, 9 of which with a total of 355 treated women and 345 controls fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In women treated with misoprostol (n = 150) vs placebo (n = 145), the median visual analogue scale (VAS) score ± SD were 5.7 ± 2.1 vs 5.1 ± 2.2, respectively. In the previously mentioned population, there was a nonsignificant change in VAS score (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-2.40). In women treated with lidocaine (n = 140) vs placebo (n = 136), the median VAS score ± SD were 4.6 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2, respectively. In the aforementioned population, there was a significant decrease in VAS score (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.91).

CONCLUSION

In nulliparous women, lidocaine treatment seems to be a reasonable choice. However, further studies are required to examine the different routes and modes of administration as well as optimal quantities.

The Efficacy of Lidocaine Spray in Pain Relief during Outpatient-Based Endometrial Sampling: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Abnormal vaginal bleeding is one of the most frequent problems found in gynecology. Endometrial histopathology is needed for definite diagnosis. It was obtained either from endometrial tissue sampling or from standard uterine curettage. Office endometrial tissue sampling is an easy and low morbid procedure. It is usually associated with pain and discomfort. Topical anesthetic agent is needed for pain relieving. This study was conducted in outpatient gynecology clinic, Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand. It was a double blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 140 participants were enrolled in study and control group. Each group consisted of 70 cases. Study group received topical spray of 10% lidocaine (40 mg) before endometrial aspiration. Topical spray of 0.9% normal saline was performed in control group. Novak curettage was an application for endometrial tissue obtaining in this study. Visual analog scale (10cm-VAS) was used for pain evaluation. Demographic character of both groups showed no statistical difference. The percentage of participants who had severe pain (VAS≥7) during tenaculum application and Novak curettage insertion and during procedure were 28.5% (20/70) versus 12.9% (9/70), 55.7% (39/70) versus 38.5% (27/70), and 78.5% (55/70) versus 60% (42/70) in control and study group, respectively. Both groups had no significant differences of postoperative pain at 15 minutes and 2 hours. This study indicates that topical lidocaine spray can relieve pain during endometrial tissue sampling.

Use of a novel suction cervical retractor for intrauterine device insertion: a pilot feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

The Bioceptive suction cervical retractor (SCR) is a novel device that can replace the standard single-tooth tenaculum to place traction on the cervix. A feasibility trial was conducted on the device for intrauterine device (IUD) placement.

METHODS

Our three-stage feasibility process began with Stage 1, where the device was tested on in-vitro and ex-vivo samples. In Stage 2, 10 women received their IUD using the device. In Stage 3, a feasibility trial, we randomly assigned 25 consenting women to receive their IUD using either the Bioceptive SCR or the standard single-tooth tenaculum. In Stages 2 and 3, we collected pain scores using an electronically adapted 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at eight timepoints during and after the insertion procedure, as well as satisfaction and acceptability measures. The primary outcome was the pain score after attaching the SCR or tenaculum (VAS 3). Wilcoxon rank sum tests compared pain scores between devices.

RESULTS

In Stage 2, pain scores with the SCR were lower than historical controls with the single-tooth tenaculum. In Stage 3, the median VAS 3 pain scores were 31 and 57 for the intervention and control groups, respectively. The differences in pain scores were not statistically significant but the trend was to lower pain scores with the intervention. Reported patient satisfaction with the SCR device was 80% in Stage 2% and 90% in Stage 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The Bioceptive SCR has potential as an atraumatic alternative to standard cervical retractor devices for gynaecological procedures. These findings can guide point estimates for future clinical studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02283463.

Anticipated pain as a predictor of discomfort with intrauterine device placement

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine devices have been gaining popularity for the past 2 decades. Current data report that >10% of women who use contraception are using an intrauterine device. With <1% failure rates, the intrauterine device is one of the most effective forms of long-acting reversible contraception, yet evidence shows that fear of pain during intrauterine device placement deters women from choosing an intrauterine device as their contraceptive method.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this analysis was to estimate the association between anticipated pain with intrauterine device placement and experienced pain. We also assessed other factors associated with increased discomfort during intrauterine device placement. We hypothesized that patients with higher levels of anticipated pain would report a higher level of discomfort during placement.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a secondary analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. There were 9256 patients enrolled in Contraceptive CHOICE Project from the St. Louis region from 2007-2011; data for 1149 subjects who came for their first placement of either the original 52-mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system or the copper intrauterine device were analyzed in this study. Patients were asked to report their anticipated pain before intrauterine device placement and experienced pain during placement on a 10-point visual analog scale. We assessed the association of anticipated pain, patient demographics, reproductive characteristics, and intrauterine device type with experienced pain with intrauterine device placement.

RESULTS

The mean age of Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants in this subanalysis was 26 years. Of these 1149 study subjects, 44% were black, and 53% were of low socioeconomic status. The median expected pain score was 5 for both the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and the copper intrauterine device; the median experienced pain score was 5 for the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and 4 for the copper intrauterine device. After we controlled for parity, history of dysmenorrhea, and type of intrauterine device, higher anticipated pain was associated with increased experienced pain (adjusted relative risk for 1 unit increase in anticipated pain, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.25). Nulliparity, history of dysmenorrhea, and the hormonal intrauterine device (compared with copper) also were associated with increased pain with intrauterine device placement.

CONCLUSION

High levels of anticipated pain correlated with high levels of experienced pain during intrauterine device placement. Nulliparity and a history of dysmenorrhea were also associated with greater discomfort during placement. This information may help guide and treat patients as they consider intrauterine device placement. Future research should focus on interventions to reduce preprocedural anxiety and anticipated pain to potentially decrease discomfort with intrauterine device placement.

Lidocaine for pain control during intrauterine device insertion

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of topical lidocaine spray, cream and injection on pain perception during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.

METHODS

Multiparous women of reproductive age were randomized into control, lidocaine cream, spray and injection groups. A 10 cm visual analog scale was used for all patients to evaluate pain during the three steps of the IUD insertion procedure. Baseline pain assessment was made immediately after the administration of analgesics, the second pain assessment was performed immediately after use of the tenaculum, and the third pain assessment was performed after IUD insertion.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were enrolled in the study. The groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics. The lidocaine injection group exhibited higher baseline pain scores (P < 0.001). Pain associated with tenaculum use was lower in the lidocaine spray group. Pain related to IUD insertion was lower in the lidocaine spray and injection groups (P < 0.001); however, lidocaine spray was superior to injection for the reduction of IUD insertion related pain (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine spray is a good option for reducing the pain experienced during insertion of an IUD. It reduces pain related to both tenaculum use and IUD insertion. Spray application is both easy and rapid. Paracervical lidocaine injection also reduces pain during IUD insertion, but has no effect on tenaculum-related pain; moreover, the injection itself is painful. Therefore, this option is not a plausible method for reducing pain during IUD insertion.

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.

New developments in intrauterine device use: focus on the US

Many more women in the US today rely upon intrauterine devices (IUDs) than in the past. This increased utilization may have substantially contributed to the decline in the percentage of unintended pregnancies in the US. Evidence-based practices have increased the number of women who are medically eligible for IUDs and have enabled more rapid access to the methods. Many women enjoy freedom to use IUDs without cost, but for many the impact of the Affordable Care Act has yet to be realized. Currently, there are three hormonal IUDs and one copper IUD available in the US. Each IUD is extremely effective, convenient, and safe. The newer IUDs have been tested in populations not usually included in clinical trials and provide reassuring answers to older concerns about IUD use in these women, including information about expulsion, infection, and discontinuation. On the other hand, larger surveillance studies have provided new estimates about the risks of complications such as perforation, especially in postpartum and breastfeeding women. This article summarizes significant features of each IUD and provides a summary of the differences to aid clinicians in the US and other countries in advising women about IUD choices.