Effect of an atraumatic vulsellum versus a single-tooth tenaculum on pain perception during intrauterine device insertion: a randomized controlled trial

Best practices for reducing pain associated with intrauterine device placement

Intrauterine devices are highly effective, long-acting, reversible forms of contraception. Despite their benefits, limited uptake persists, particularly among underserved populations, adolescents, and young adults. While most intrauterine device placement procedures are uncomplicated, pain is commonly reported, with more severe pain reported in certain groups. No current standard of care has been established specifically to manage pain with intrauterine device placement, resulting in wide variation in clinical practice. This article aims to provide practical, evidence-based, and expert-informed guidelines for managing pain during intrauterine device placement. The authors (a group of board-certified obstetrician-gynecologists, pediatricians, and a family physician) conducted a virtual expert meeting to develop consensus-based recommendations for pain management. The meeting covered environmental considerations, nonpharmacological, and pharmacological options. Key strategies include using a person-centered care model that focuses on patient values, needs, and preferences to promote shared decision-making around pain relief. Clinicians should assist patients in setting realistic expectations, including a discussion of the placement procedure, anticipated pain, and all options for pain relief, to allow for a comprehensive informed consent process. Nonpharmacological interventions, such as the use of therapeutic language and comforting environmental, complementary and integrative, and mind-body elements, are recommended to reduce patient anxiety and discomfort. In terms of pharmacological options, clinicians may offer pre-procedural-specific nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (eg, naproxen and ketorolac) and anxiolytics to patients with significant anxiety, as well as intraprocedural application of topical anesthesia and paracervical or intracervical blocks. Finally, additional techniques, such as using appropriately sized instruments and ensuring gradual and gentle procedural steps, can also help enhance patient comfort during insertion. These expert guidelines emphasize the importance of personalized, trauma-informed, and evidence-based care, prioritizing patient autonomy and preferences to facilitate a safe and acceptable insertion experience. They are critical to reducing barriers to intrauterine device uptake and improving overall patient outcomes.

Levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device placement without uterine sounding: A feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate feasibility of levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device (IUD) placement without uterine sounding.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a three-phase feasibility study from February 2023-May 2024. In phase one, participants had levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD placement with sounding. In the experimental phases, placement occurred without sounding and with (phase two) or without (phase three) concurrent transabdominal sonography and participants had 3-month follow-up. We defined feasibility as successful IUD placement without uterine sounding based on ultrasound confirmation. We measured total instrumentation time from the sound or inserter touching the cervix to inserter removal. Participants reported maximal pain experienced using a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale when the inserter was removed. We calculated a sample size of 30 per phase so that if there was one failed placement, the lower 95% confidence interval of the successful placement rate would be no less than 90.0%.

RESULTS

Successful placement without sounding occurred in 30(100%) participants in phase two and 28(93.3%) in phase three. Median instrumentation was longest in phase one (49.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 42.3-55.0] seconds) compared to phases two (16.0 [IQR12.0-28.0] seconds, p < 0.0001) and three (25.0 [IQR 18.5-32.2] seconds, p < 0.0001). Participants' median placement pain was 21.0 (IQR 10.3-32.8) mm in phase one with no difference in phase two (25.5 [IQR 14.3-47.0] mm, p = 0.35), but was higher in phase three (36.0 [IQR 22.8, 61.0] mm, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD placement without sounding is feasible with concurrent sonography. Placement without sounding results in shorter instrumentation time but does not decrease maximum placement pain.

Safety and efficacy of a suction cervical stabilizer for intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: Results from a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

To compare patient-reported pain, bleeding, and device safety between intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) insertion procedures employing a suction cervical stabilizer or single-tooth tenaculum.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized, prospective, single-blinded study conducted at two centers, enrolling women aged 18 years or older, eligible for IUD insertion. The primary end point measure was patient-reported pain, measured on a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale. Safety was assessed on the amount of bleeding, adverse events, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

One hundred women were randomized, 48 to the investigational device and 52 to control. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in factors potentially associated with pain on IUD insertion. IUD insertion was successful in 94% of all subjects. Subjects in the investigational device group reported pain scores ≥14 points lower than in the control group at cervix grasping (14.9 vs 31.3; p < 0.001) and traction (17.0 vs 35.9; p < 0.001), and smaller differences in pain scores at the IUD insertion (31.5 vs 44.9; p = 0.021) and cervix-release (20.6 vs 30.9; p = 0.049) steps. Nulliparous women experienced the greatest pain differences to control. Mean blood loss was 0.336 (range 0.022-2.189) grams in the investigational device group and 1.336 (range 0.201-11.936) grams in the control group, respectively (p = 0.03 for the comparison). One adverse event (bruising and minor bleeding) in the investigational device group was considered causally related to the study device.

CONCLUSIONS

The suction cervical stabilizer had a reassuring safety profile and its use was associated with significant reductions in pain during the IUD insertion procedure compared with standard single-tooth tenaculum use, particularly among nulliparous women.

IMPLICATIONS

Pain can be an important barrier to greater use of IUD devices among prescribers and users, particularly nulliparous women. The suction cervical stabilizer may provide an appealing alternative to currently available tenacula, filling an important unmet need.

Cervical bleeding with cervical stabilization during IUD placement: allis clamp versus single-tooth tenaculum, a randomized control trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the use of an atraumatic Allis clamp will result in less bleeding than the standard single-tooth tenaculum for cervical stabilization during intrauterine device (IUD) placement.

METHODS

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted during insertions of IUDs between March 2017 and March 2018. University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board (IRB 16-1110-P3K) approval was obtained. Physicians were randomized to use either an Allis clamp or a single-tooth tenaculum for cervical stabilization. A post-procedure questionnaire was used to collect outcome measures as well as demographic and obstetric-related factors.

RESULTS

Of the ninety-five participants, there was no difference in age, self-identified race/ethnicity, or the evaluated obstetric factors between the groups. Bleeding was present after clamp removal in 3 (6.3%) insertions using an Allis clamp and 26 (55.3%) insertions using a single-tooth tenaculum (RR = 0.113, CI = [0.037, 0.3481], p < 0.0001). There was no difference in IUD insertion success rates between the two clamps. There was no difference in the number of interventions needed to obtain hemostasis including indirect pressure, silver nitrate, monsel's solution, or stitch for hemostasis. Pain scores did not differ based on clamp type or age of patient, but were significantly different based on parity (p < 0.001) and IUD type (p < 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Decreased incidence of bleeding from cervical stabilization device, with unchanged insertion success using the Allis clamp can be an alternative to the single tooth tenaculum in the procedure of IUD insertion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The trial was retrospectively registered on 1/11/22 (trial registration number NCT05187078).

Dysmenorrhoea as a risk factor for pain with intrauterine device insertion

BACKGROUND

Understanding predictors of pain with gynaecological procedures may facilitate individualised counselling and pain management. We aimed to study the effect of dysmenorrhoea on intrauterine device (IUD) insertion pain.

METHODS

This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomised trial evaluating self-administered lidocaine gel versus placebo for IUD insertion pain. We included those participants who reported menses in the past 3 months. We assessed dysmenorrhoea (in the past 3 months) and procedural pain using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). We categorised dysmenorrhoea as none/mild (<40 mm), moderate (40-69 mm) or severe (≥70 mm). We assessed participant pain scores at speculum insertion, tenaculum placement, IUD insertion, and overall. We compared median procedural pain scores by dysmenorrhoea group with three-way and post hoc pairwise analyses.

RESULTS

We analysed 188 participants. Demographic characteristics were similar among the three dysmenorrhoea groups. Pairwise comparisons revealed higher median procedural pain scores in the severe dysmenorrhoea group compared with the none/mild dysmenorrhoea group at speculum insertion (25 mm vs 8 mm; p=0.007), tenaculum placement (51 mm vs 31 mm; p=0.04) and IUD insertion (74 mm vs 61 mm; p=0.04). Overall pain did not differ among the three groups (p=0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe dysmenorrhoea experienced increased pain with all aspects of IUD insertion, including speculum and tenaculum placement, compared with those with only mild or no dysmenorrhoea. Clinicians may consider this finding when providing individualised counselling and pain management for patients undergoing IUD insertion and other gynaecological procedures. Larger studies are needed to validate the effect of dysmenorrhoea severity on pain throughout IUD insertion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the Valsalva manoeuvre be an alternative to the tenaculum for intrauterine device insertion?

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated whether the Valsalva manoeuvre (VM) could be an alternative to use of the tenaculum for intrauterine device (IUD) insertion. The aims were to establish whether VM could provide good patient comfort and enable the insertion to be performed successfully with adequate pain control in cases where the cervix could not be passed spontaneously.

METHODS

Women who attended the outpatient clinic of Alanya Education and Research Hospital between November 2017 and December 2020 for IUD insertion were randomly assigned to the VM (n = 52) or tenaculum (n = 55) group. Insertion in the latter group was carried out by grasping the cervix with a single-toothed tenaculum. In the VM group, no tenaculum was used to grasp the cervix; instead, the woman was asked to perform VM during insertion.

RESULTS

IUD insertion success rates were similar between the groups. Procedural anxiety scores were slightly higher in the tenaculum group. Pain scores measured during the procedure were significantly higher in the tenaculum group compared with the VM group. Severe pain was reported by 58.2% of women in the tenaculum group, whereas 57.7% of women in the VM group reported no pain.

CONCLUSION

In cases where an IUD cannot be passed through the cervical canal spontaneously, the procedure should be attempted using VM before using a tenaculum. The use of VM may lead to lower pain and anxiety levels as well as increased patient comfort.

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.

Pain perception with cervical tenaculum placement during intrauterine device insertion: a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

'Slow' and 'cough' techniques for tenaculum placement are commonly used. This trial sought to determine if one method of placement resulted in less pain for patients.

METHODS

This study was a randomised controlled trial of patients presenting for intrauterine device placement. Sixty-six participants were randomised to tenaculum placement via the 'slow' method (closure of tenaculum over a 5-s period) versus the 'cough' method (closure of tenaculum at the time of patient's cough). The primary outcome was pain at time of tenaculum placement measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. The study was powered to detect a 16 mm difference in pain. Secondary outcomes included pain with insertion and provider satisfaction with tenaculum grasp. Pain scores were analysed with Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

RESULTS

Sixty-six women were enrolled, 33 randomised to each group. Demographics were similar in each group. The primary outcome of pain with tenaculum placement showed a median pain score of 44 (IQR=21, 63) with slow placement and 32 (IQR=19, 54) with cough placement. There was no significant difference in pain scores between methods of tenaculum placement (p=0.16). There was no significant difference in overall pain scores (p=0.12). Provider satisfaction was not associated with one method of placement (p=1). Pre-procedure anxiety was significantly associated with pain at the time of tenaculum placement (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the slow method nor cough method is superior for pain reduction or provider satisfaction. Pain with tenaculum use is significantly associated with anxiety.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02969421.

Anticipated Pain During Intrauterine Device Insertion

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of anticipated pain with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in adolescents and young women.

DESIGN

We performed linear regression to identify demographic, sexual/gynecologic history, and mood covariates associated with anticipated pain using a visual analogue scale pain score collected as part of a single-blind randomized trial of women who received a 13.5-mg levonorgestrel IUD.

SETTING

Three academic family planning clinics in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-three adolescents and young adult women aged 14-22 years.

INTERVENTION

Participants received either a 1% lidocaine or sham paracervical block.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Anticipated pain measured using a visual analogue scale before and perceived pain at 6 time points during the IUD insertion procedure.

RESULTS

Black or African American participants had a median anticipated pain score of 68 (interquartile range [IQR], 52-83), White participants had a median anticipated pain of 51 (IQR, 35-68), whereas participants of other races had a median anticipated pain score of 64 (IQR, 36-73); P = .012. In multivariate analysis, race was the only covariate that significantly predicted anticipated pain at IUD insertion. Women with anticipated pain scores above the median had significantly higher perceived pain during all timepoints of the IUD insertion procedure.

CONCLUSION

Increased anticipated pain is associated with increased perceived pain with IUD insertion. Black adolescent women experience greater anticipated pain with IUD insertion. This population might benefit from counseling and clinical measures to reduce this barrier to IUD use.

Will it Hurt? The Intrauterine Device Insertion Experience and Long-Term Acceptability Among Adolescents and Young Women

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To examine how the intrauterine device (IUD) insertion experience affects long-term IUD acceptability among adolescents.

DESIGN

Text to Web survey study.

SETTING

Boston Children's Hospital and Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts.

PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Nulliparous adolescents aged 13-21 years who received an IUD or etonogestrel implant between January 2012 and May 2018.

RESULTS

We received survey responses from 95 adolescents (n = 46 IUD; n = 49 implant; response rate = 95/1098 (9%)). Mean current age (20.8 years) and time since device insertion (2.4 years) were similar between groups. Although a large proportion of both groups (64%) experienced moderate to severe preprocedural anxiety, IUD users expected more insertional pain compared with implant users (55.6 vs 39.6; P = .01). Compared with implant users, more IUD users experienced moderate to severe insertional pain (80% vs 18%; P < .0001), recalled that the procedure hurt more than expected (52% vs 4%; P < .0001), and endorsed lower rates of pain management satisfaction (72.4 vs 85.6; P = .04). Most respondents would recommend their method to a friend (75%) or consider getting the same device in the future (63%). When explicitly asked, more IUD users reported that dislike of the insertion procedure might or would probably prevent them from getting the same device in the future (41% vs 14%; P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Compared with implant users, IUD users reported more negative insertion experiences, although preprocedural anxiety was prevalent in both groups. Dislike of the insertion experience might negatively affect adolescents' willingness to continue using an IUD in the future. Findings should encourage multimodal interventions to holistically improve the IUD insertion experience.

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.

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.

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.