Association of Anticipated Insertional Pain With Intrauterine Device Initiation

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.

Injectable, degradable, and mechanically adaptive hydrogel induced by L-serine and allyl-functionalized chitosan with platelet-rich plasma for treating intrauterine adhesions

The integration of barrier materials with pharmacological therapy is a promising strategy to treat intrauterine adhesions (IUAs). However, most of these materials are surgically implanted in a fixed shape and incongruence with the natural mechanical properties of the uterus, causing poor adaptability and significant discomfort to the patients. Herein, an injectable, biodegradable, and mechanically adaptive hydrogel loaded with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is created by L‑serine and allyl functionalized chitosan (ACS) to achieve efficient, comfortable, and minimally invasive treatment of IUAs. L‑serine induces fast gelation and mechanical reinforcement of the hydrogel, while ACS introduces, imparting a good injectability and complaint yet strong feature to the hydrogel. This design enables the hydrogel to adapt to the complex geometry and match the mechanical properties of the uterine. Moreover, the hydrogel exhibits proper degradability, sustained growth factors (GFs) of PRP release ability, and good biocompatibility. Consequently, the hydrogel shows promising therapeutic efficacy by reducing collagen fiber deposition and facilitating endometrium cell proliferation, thereby restoring the fertility function of the uterus in an IUAs model of rats. Accordingly, the combination of L‑serine and ACS-induced hydrogel with such advantages holds great potential for treating IUAs. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This research introduces a breakthrough in the treatment of intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) with an injectable, biodegradable and mechanically adaptive hydrogel using L‑serine and allyl functionalized chitosan (ACS). Unlike traditional surgical treatments, this hydrogel uniquely conforms to the uterus's geometry and mechanical properties, offering a minimally invasive, comfortable, and more effective solution. The hydrogel is designed to release growth factors from platelet-rich plasma (PRP) sustainably, promoting tissue regeneration by enhancing collagen fiber deposition and endometrium cell proliferation. Demonstrated efficacy in a rat model of IUAs indicates its great potential to significantly improve fertility restoration treatments. This advancement represents a significant leap in reproductive medicine, promising to transform IUAs treatment with its innovative approach to achieving efficient, comfortable, and minimally invasive therapy.

Nitrous Oxide Use for Intrauterine System Placement in Adolescents

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of nitrous oxide on patient-reported pain for placement of intrauterine systems (IUSs) in adolescents STUDY DESIGN: : Prospective observational study SETTING: : IUS placement in an ambulatory clinic compared with placement with nitrous oxide in a hospital-based sedation unit PARTICIPANTS: : English-speaking adolescents aged 12 to 20 presenting to a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist with a medical indication for IUS placement MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Patient-reported procedural pain measured on a visual analog scale 2 minutes post IUS insertion procedure. Secondary outcome measurement of likelihood of recommending an IUS to a peer.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients agreed to participate. Forty-five patients underwent IUS placement in the clinic. Controlling for age, history of dysmenorrhea, and body mass index, a significant time (change in reported pain scores pre- vs post IUS insertion) by treatment (nitrous oxide vs standard of care) interaction was observed for patient-reported pain (b = -29.32 mm, P < 0.01). Patients receiving nitrous oxide were more likely to recommend an intrauterine placement than patients who received the current standard of care for pain management (b = 0.47, P = 0.02) after controlling for age, baseline pain score, and dysmenorrhea history.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported pain was attenuated for patients who received nitrous oxide relative to those who received standard IUS placement. Patient-reported satisfaction was higher for patients who received nitrous oxide relative to those who received standard IUS placement.

Use of naproxen versus intracervical block for pain control during the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion in young women: a multivariate analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background

To compare the effectiveness of 550 mg naproxen sodium versus 6 mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block in pain lowering at the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) placement in young women.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, 100 women aged 15–24 years were block-randomized to receive either 6 mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block 5 min before the LNG-IUS insertion or 550 mg naproxen 30 min before the procedure. Forty-nine women received 550 mg naproxen and 51 received intracervical block. The primary outcome was pain at LNG-IUS insertion. Secondary outcomes were ease of insertion, insertion failures, and correct IUS positioning. Neither participants nor doctors were blinded. Pain at insertion was assessed by using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

Results

Women randomized to lidocaine intracervical block presented lower mean pain score at insertion, when compared to women who received naproxen (5.4 vs. 7.3, respectively; p < 0.001). Parous women had a 90.1% lower chance of experiencing severe pain (p = 0.004). There was a 49.8% reduction in the chance of severe pain for every 1-cm increase in the hysterometry (p = 0.002). The only complication observed during insertion was vasovagal-like reactions (7%). The insertion was performed without difficulty in 82% of the women. Participants in the intracervical block group presented higher proportion of malpositioned IUS on transvaginal ultrasound examination compared to women in naproxen group. Nevertheless, all the malpositioned IUS were inserted by resident physicians.

Conclusion

Lidocaine intracervical block was found to be more effective than naproxen in reducing LNG-IUS insertion pain.

Trial registration number: RBR-68mmbp, Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, Retrospectively registered (August 4, 2020), URL of trial registry record: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-68mmbp/.

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.

Practical Tips for Intrauterine Device Counseling, Insertion, and Pain Relief in Adolescents: An Update

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have endorsed intrauterine devices as first-line contraceptive choices for nulliparous and parous adolescents. Practical concerns about intrauterine devices might be barriers to use for teens and clinicians; this review is devoted to "practical tips" for clinicians, on the basis of an update of the available literature as well as the author's clinical experience. Counseling about contraceptive choices, preventive guidance about possible side effects, informed consent, and pain management are addressed to promote successful use of this long-acting reversible contraption option.

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.