Comparative efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine cream and vaginal misoprostol in reducing pain during levonorgestrel intrauterine device insertion in women delivered only by cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine (LP) cream versus misoprostol versus placebo before levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) insertion.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital from April 30, 2020 to March 1, 2021 on 210 parous women willing to receive LNG-IUD and delivered only by elective cesarean delivery (CD). Participants received 200 μg vaginal misoprostol or 5 ml of LP cream 5% or placebo 3 h before LNG-IUS insertion. Primary outcome was pain during LNG-IUD insertion, while secondary outcomes were pain 10 min post-procedure, ease of insertion, patient satisfaction, insertion time, and drug side effects.

RESULTS

Pain during LNG-IUS insertion was reduced in LP group and misoprostol group compared to placebo group (2.1 ± 1.0 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001) and (2.3 ± 1.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001), respectively. Ease of procedure and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in LP and misoprostol groups than placebo (P <0.001). Need for additional analgesia was significantly higher in placebo group than in the other two groups (P = 0.009). Adverse events were not significantly different between the three groups except vomiting and abdominal cramps, which were higher with misoprostol.

CONCLUSION

LP cream and 200 μg of vaginal misoprostol administration before LNG-IUD insertion in women delivered only by elective CD effectively reduced pain during insertion and 10 min post-procedure with easier insertions, high patient satisfaction, and tolerable side effects. Pain reduction with LP cream was clinically significant.

Analgesic effects of LI4 acupuncture during intrauterine device insertion: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Intrauterine device (IUD) is one the most effective contraceptive methods with reversible long-term effects. However, the major drawback of IUD use is pain perception during the insertion of the device. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of bilateral LI4 acupuncture, administered before IUD insertion, on pain perception.

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized controlled study. It was held in Community Health Center in Niğde, Turkiye. Individuals enrolled in the study were randomized into the acupuncture group and non-intervention group. Acupuncture group received bilateral LI4 acupuncture prior to IUD insertion while others received no interventions. After IUD insertion, 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS) score was evaluated at 3rd minute and at 10th minute. Health care provider performing the IUD insertion and VAS evaluation was blind to randomization.

RESULTS

In total 72 participants were included in the study. The VAS scores were significantly lower in the acupuncture group both at 3rd minute and at 10th minute (1.93 ± 1.68; 3.81 ± 1.95; p < 0.001 and 0.53 ± 0.84; 1.64 ± 1.10; p < 0.001 respectively). Linear regression analysis showed that acupuncture was a significant predictor for lowering VAS both at 3rd minutes and 10th minutes following IUD insertion (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized controlled clinical study investigating the effects of acupuncture on pain control during IUD insertion. The results demonstrated that bilateral LI4 acupuncture provides significant pain relief at both cervical and fundal components. Acupuncture prior to IUD insertion is a significant predictor of lowering overall VAS scores of individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04963582.

Does Ultrasound Guidance Provide Pain Relief During Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Insertion? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ultrasound guidance effect in pain relief during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.

METHODS

Four different databases were searched from inception till June 2022. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared transabdominal ultrasound guidance versus traditional non-guided IUD insertion among women undergoing IUD placement for contraception. We used Revman software during performing our meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was the pain score during IUD insertion as evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Our secondary outcomes were the procedure insertion time, satisfaction, and incidences of complications and misplaced IUDs.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were retrieved with a total number of 1267 patients. There was a significant reduction in the VAS pain score during IUD insertion among the ultrasound-guided group (MD = -1.91, 95% CI [-3.08, -0.73], P = .001). The procedure insertion time was significantly shorter within the ultrasound guidance group compared with the control group (MD = -1.35, 95% CI [-1.81, -0.88], P < .001). Moreover, more women were significantly satisfied with the procedure among the ultrasound-guided group (P < .001). In addition, ultrasound-guided IUD insertion was linked to significant decline in incidences of complications and misplaced IUDs.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound guidance can be used as a modified technique during IUD insertion as it decreases pain, procedure time, and rates of complications and misplaced IUDs with better patient satisfaction.

Misoprostol administration prior to intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objectives: Misoprostol has been used before intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) insertion to prime the cervical os. As the literature about this topic is controversial, we aimed to evaluate IUCD insertion failure, women's pain perception, use of cervical dilators and prevalence of side effects following the administration of misoprostol.Methods: Trials published in MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (last search on 23 October 2019). The primary outcome was IUCD insertion failure; secondary outcomes were women's pain perception, use of cervical dilators to facilitate insertion, and prevalence of side effects.Results: Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion. Misoprostol premedication reduced IUCD insertion failure rates and the use of cervical dilators but significantly increased the prevalence of side effects. The risk of IUCD insertion failure with misoprostol premedication was reduced among women who had undergone previous caesarean section and among women who had experienced previous IUCD insertion failure. Nulliparas did not benefit from misoprostol premedication. Buccal misoprostol administration did not seem to be effective in reducing IUCD insertion failure. Visual analogue scale pain scores were increased with both sublingual and buccal misoprostol administration if IUCD insertion was performed ≤2.5 h after misoprostol premedication.Conclusion: Our data demonstrate reduced IUCD insertion failure among women with previous caesarean section and those with previous IUCD insertion failure, suggesting that misoprostol may be a reasonable choice in these groups of women. Although misoprostol premedication reduced insertion failures, it significantly increased side effects and had a heterogeneous pattern of efficacy; thus, its routine use is not supported by the evidence.

Intrauterine lidocaine and naproxen for analgesia during intrauterine device insertion: randomized controlled trial

Background

This study evaluates oral naproxen and intrauterine instillation of lidocaine for analgesia with intrauterine device (IUD) placement as compared to placebo.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients desiring levonorgestrel 52 mg IUD or Copper T380A IUD were randomized into treatment groups. Patients received either oral naproxen 375 mg or placebo approximately 1 h prior to procedure in conjunction with 5 mL of 2% lidocaine or 5 mL of intrauterine saline. The primary outcome was pain with IUD insertion measured on a visual analog scale immediately following the procedure. Prespecified secondary outcomes included physician pain assessment, post procedure analgesia, satisfaction with procedure, satisfaction with IUD, and pain assessment related to IUD type.

Results

From June 4, 2014 to October 28, 2016 a total of 160 women desiring Copper T380A or levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine device insertion and meeting study criteria were enrolled and randomized in the study. Of these, 157 (78 in the Copper T380A arm, 79 in the levonorgestrel 52 mg) received study treatment medication. There were 39 in naproxen/lidocaine arm, 39 in placebo/lidocaine arm, 40 in naproxen/placebo arm, and 39 in placebo/placebo arm. There were no differences in the mean pain scores for IUD placement between treatment groups (naproxen/lidocaine 3.38 ± 2.49; lidocaine only 2.87 ± 2.13; naproxen only 3.09 ± 2.18; placebo 3.62 ± 2.45). There was no difference in self-medication post procedure or in satisfaction with the procedure and IUD among women in the treatment arms or by type of IUD.

Conclusion

Naproxen with or without intrauterine lidocaine does not reduce pain with IUD placement.

Clinical trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02769247. Registered May 11, 2016, Retrospectively registered.

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.

Ultrasound-guided intrauterine device insertion: a step closer to painless insertion: a randomized control trial

AIM OF STUDY

To reduce the pain and duration of the intrauterine device (IUD) insertion procedure through minimizing instrumentation and using trans-abdominal sonography (TAS).

METHODS

This randomized control trial was conducted in a university hospital and included 102 eligible females, fulfilling the inclusion criteria. They were randomly assigned into two groups via 1:1 computer-based randomization program; the trans-abdominal guided IUD insertion group (n = 51), and the traditional IUD insertion group (n = 51). The main outcomes were the pain experienced during the procedure as scored by the visual analogue score and the duration of the procedure.

RESULTS

The trans-abdominal guided IUD insertion was found to be statistically superior to the traditional technique for IUD insertion regarding the pain scores (according to the Visual Analogue Scale, from 0 to 10) recorded by the candidates (2.4 ± 2.1 vs. 5.0 ± 1.7, p < .001) as well as the time (in seconds) taken for IUD insertion procedure (32.2 ± 14.8 vs. 77.7 ± 30.6, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the decrease in pain and time taken for IUD insertion, the trans-abdominal guided technique can be used as a modified technique for IUD insertion. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02582268.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of Intrauterine Lignocaine in Addition to Paracervical Block for Pain Relief during Dilatation and Curettage, and Fractional Curettage

PURPOSE OF STUDY

Dilatation and curettage (D&C) and fractional curettage (F/C) are commonly performed gynecological procedures. Randomized controlled trials have concluded that topical anesthesia effectively reduces pain in endometrial sampling and hysteroscopy. Our study was aimed at investigating this modality of pain relief in setting of a developing country where, due to lack of resources, successful completion of these procedures in an outpatient setting is a necessity.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study conducted in 84 patients. All patients received either intrauterine 2 % lignocaine or normal saline along with oral NSAID and paracervical block prior to the procedure. The pain was analyzed at three steps: at the time of curette, immediately post-procedure, and 30 min later using 10-cm visual analog score.

RESULTS

The patients in the experimental and control groups were well matched for age, parity, body mass index, menopausal status, and the indications for intervention. At all the three stages, pain perceived in the lignocaine group was significantly less as compared to that in placebo group. As compared to lignocaine group (55 %), significantly higher number of women in placebo group (88 %) perceived severe pain during endometrial curettage (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study indicates that two percent intrauterine lignocaine significantly decreases the pain perception during intrauterine gynecological procedures such as D&C and F/C. This is a simple, effective, inexpensive, and low-risk intervention which can potentially increase the patient acceptability and compliance with such procedures.

Objective Assessment of Cervical Stiffness after Administration of Misoprostol for Intrauterine Contraceptive Insertion

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to objectively quantify cervical stiffness in misoprostol users prior to IUC insertion and at follow-up consultation to evaluate the feasibility of assessing cervical stiffness and to study the influence of misoprostol on cervical softening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that evaluated 40 women who wished to use the LNG IUS. These women were evaluated immediately before LNG IUS insertion and 6 weeks later at follow-up consultation. Participants received 200 μg of misoprostol combined with 75 mg of diclofenac in a single tablet orally (Arthrotec forte 75/200(®), Pfizer, USA) 6-12 h prior to insertion in "off label" use. On both occasions, cervical stiffness was determined using a novel medical device based on the aspiration technique. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were applied to compare cervical stiffness assessments at insertion of the IUD and at follow-up.

RESULTS

For the first time, cervical stiffness was quantitatively assessed in misoprostol users prior to IUD insertion, proving that the aspiration technique enables detection of pharmacologically induced cervical changes, and also that misoprostol has a detectable softening effect on cervical tissue.

CONCLUSION

The clinical value of the detected cervical softening after misoprostol administration remains unclear. Aspiration measurements could be helpful in searching for the ideal candidate, the appropriate route, dosage and interval of misoprostol intake prior to IUC insertion.

Evaluation of an intervention designed to improve the management of difficult IUD insertions by advanced practice clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether clinical skills training in cervical dilation and paracervical anesthesia, as well as the introduction of a clinical protocol for difficult insertions, increased intrauterine device (IUD) insertion success rates among advanced practice clinicians (APCs) including women's health and family practice nurse practitioners, physician assistants and certified nurse midwives.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective study assessed an intervention to improve IUD insertions among APCs at six family planning clinics in Utah. We collected data on IUD insertions performed by participating clinicians during two observation phases: preintervention (Phase 1) and postintervention (Phase 2). Using electronic medical records, we tracked patient characteristics, IUD insertion success, difficulties and failures. We constructed a mixed-effects logistic regression model to control for provider and patient demographics influencing insertion success rates.

RESULTS

Nine clinicians participated in both preintervention and postintervention phases. The analysis included 428 IUD insertion procedures (242 preintervention and 186 postintervention). During Phase 1, 31/242 (12.8%) insertions failed. Insertion rates in Phase 2 improved with only 8/186 (4.3%) failures. Using mixed-effects logistic regression, the odds of a successful insertion postintervention was 4.8 times greater than preintervention (aOR=4.8.95% CI 1.8-12.7) when controlling for provider and patient characteristics. Increased risk of insertion failure was associated with nulliparity and younger age during Phase 1, but not during Phase 2.

CONCLUSIONS

A brief training for APCs and the use of a clinical protocol for difficult insertions may be able to improve IUD insertion rates.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinics with high rates of IUD insertion failure can improve care with a simple intervention, which may yield significant benefits in IUD service delivery.

Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of vaginal administration of misoprostol before intrauterine contraceptive insertion following previous insertion failure: a double blind RCT

STUDY QUESTION

Is pretreatment with misoprostol useful in insertion of intrauterine contraceptives (IUCs) after insertion failure at the first attempt?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Pretreatment with intravaginal administration of 200 mcg of misoprostol after IUC insertion failure 10 and 4 h before the second attempt of IUC placement was significantly better than placebo at facilitating the insertion of an IUC.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

One of the reasons for low use of IUCs is the concept that insertion is difficult. Misoprostol was used in several randomized clinical trials (RCT) before IUC insertion to facilitate the insertion. In general, the results showed no significant differences when compared with placebo. However, most previous studies have been carried out among unselected women whereas the present study is among women with previous insertion failure.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a double blind RCT conducted between February 2013 and October 2014. Participants were 104 women who requested an insertion of an IUC and the insertion failed at the first attempt. After insertion failure, the women received a sealed envelope with misoprostol or placebo. The randomization system (1: 1) in one block size was computer-generated.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study was conducted at a tertiary care centre. The women were instructed to insert vaginally one tablet of misoprostol 200 µg (Prostokos, Hebron, Cariacica, PE, Brazil) or placebo 10 and 4 h before the woman returned to the clinic for a new insertion attempt. The outcomes were successful IUC insertion and the use of a cervical dilator immediately prior to the insertion procedure.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 2639 women requested the insertion of an IUC during the study period. The IUC was inserted at the first attempt in 2535 women (96%) and 104 women in whom we were unable to insert the device were eligible to participate in the RCT. Four women declined and 100 women were randomized (55 for the misoprostol group and 45 for the placebo group). From the 100 participating women, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) was chosen by 55 and 37 women and the TCu380A intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) was chosen by none and 8 women in the misoprostol and placebo group, respectively. Seven and three women allocated to misoprostol and placebo, respectively, never returned to the clinic after randomization. We placed the IUC in 42 (87.5%) out of the 48 women and in 26 (61.9%) out of the 42 women randomized to misoprostol and placebo, respectively (P = 0.0066). Regarding the Evaluable Population the relative risk (RR) of successful insertions was 1.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) for absolute difference (8.2, 43.0), P = 0.0066); in the Intent-to-Treat Population the RR (95% CI) was 1.32 (0.3, 36.9). Multiple regression analysis showed that the significant variables associated with the insertion failure were the number of Caesarean section ≥1 (P = 0.020) and the use of placebo (P = 0.026). Dilators were used in 21 (43.7%) out of the 48 and 21 (50%) out of the 42 women randomized to misoprostol and placebo, respectively (P = 0.804).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The limitations were that the majority of the women chose the LNG-IUS, and consequently the data for the Cu-IUD were limited, and there was a small number of nulligravidas.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results show that IUC insertion difficulties and failures are not common. Pretreatment with intravaginal misoprostol facilitated IUC insertion after failure of insertion at the first attempt, and insertion failure was associated with number of Caesarean sections.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study received partial financial support from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), grant # 2012/10085-0, and from the National Research Council (CNPq), grant #573747/2008-3. All the TCu380A IUDs were donated by Injeflex, São Paulo, Brazil, and all the LNG-IUS were donated by the International Contraceptive Access Foundation (ICA), Turku, Finland. Both donations were provided in the form of unrestricted grants. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01754649.

Intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: a prospective survey

Background

Intrauterine contraception is a first-line option for young women, yet relatively few prospective studies have been performed in nulliparous women using currently available devices, and many providers are still reluctant to provide this option.

Methods

Between January 2012 and June 2014, 109 nulliparous women, aged 18–30 years, who had an intrauterine device (IUD) placed at a student health clinic [88 levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) users and 21 Cu T 380A (IUD) users] were surveyed at 1, 6, 12 and 18 months after insertion.

Results

Overall satisfaction was high; at follow-up survey 83% of 100 women (mean use 13.4 months) were ‘happy’ or ‘very happy’ with their IUD, and there were no differences in satisfaction between the two IUD types. Some 75% of participants stated that the insertion procedure went ‘very well’, despite 78% rating insertion pain as moderate to severe, and 46% experiencing vasovagal symptoms. The 12-month continuation rate was 89%, with discontinuations for expulsion (3%), side effects (6%), lack of anticipated benefit (1%) and pregnancy (1%). Users of the Cu T 380A were more likely to have heavy menses (74% vs 2%; p<0.0001) or moderate to severe cramping (68% vs 20%; p=0.0002) compared with LNG-IUS users. There were no uterine perforations or diagnoses of pelvic inflammatory disease. The rate of failed insertions during the study period was 6.2%.

Conclusions

Despite significant symptoms with insertion, intrauterine contraception is safe, effective and ultimately well tolerated in nulliparous women and should be provided to this population in both university and community health settings.

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

OBJECTIVE

Fear of pain during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion can be a barrier to widespread use of this safe and highly effective contraceptive method. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of topical 10% lidocaine spray for pain control during IUD insertion.

METHODS

A total of 200 subjects with the request for IUD insertion were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: lidocaine spray (n=100) and placebo (n=100). The pain experienced during the procedure was measured immediately after insertion by a standard Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) administered by a separate researcher with maintenance of allocation concealment.

RESULTS

The mean pain score during the procedure was 1.01±1.20 in the lidocaine spray group and 3.23±1.60 in the placebo spray group (p<0.001). Lidocaine spray treatment significantly lowered the overall procedural pain score compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant pain reduction during IUD insertion can be achieved by using 10% lidocaine spray alone. Lidocaine spray can be accepted as a non-invasive, easy to apply and more comfortable local anaesthetic method for IUD insertion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02020551.

A comparison of the expected and actual pain experienced by women during insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device

OBJECTIVE

To compare the expected and actual pain experienced with the insertion of intrauterine contraception in women, and to determine whether either of these are related to their personal circumstances, or affected their satisfaction with the procedure.

DESIGN

A convenience sample of 89 women aged 15-50 years attending a sexual health clinic for same day intrauterine contraception insertion were given a questionnaire that they completed following the procedure. The women were asked to rate their expectation of pain prior to insertion and to rate the actual pain they experienced immediately after insertion, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being severe pain. Information on the women's circumstances and their level of satisfaction with the procedure was also obtained.

RESULTS

Overall, the median actual pain experienced by women during insertion (4) was significantly lower than the expected pain median (6) (P<0.001). For those women who had not had a previous vaginal delivery, actual pain was significantly higher compared with women who had had a previous vaginal delivery (median [interquartile range]: 6 [3.5-7.5] and 3 [1-5], P<0.001, respectively), but there was no significant difference between expected and actual pain experiences. In women who had a previous vaginal delivery, actual pain was much lower than expected (P<0.001). Neither actual nor expected pain experiences were linked to any other sociodemographic reproductive health or service use factors.

CONCLUSION

All women had a high expectation of pain prior to IUD insertion, but for those who had had a previous vaginal delivery, this was significantly greater than that actually experienced. Satisfaction levels overall were high. Counseling of women should take into account their expected pain prior to IUD insertion and consideration should be given to alternative and additional methods of pain relief in women who have not had a previous vaginal delivery.

Prophylactic ibuprofen does not improve pain with IUD insertion: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if ibuprofen 800mg reduces pain with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion among U.S. women.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of women undergoing IUD insertion approximately 2-6weeks following first-trimester uterine aspiration. Subjects were randomized to receive ibuprofen 800mg or placebo 30-45min prior to IUD insertion. A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) was administered to measure pain after speculum insertion (baseline) and immediately following IUD insertion.

RESULTS

A total of 202 women were enrolled, with 101 randomized to each group (ibuprofen or placebo). Sociodemographic characteristics and baseline VAS scores were similar between groups. The median pain score with IUD insertion was 41.5mm in the placebo group and 38.0mm in the ibuprofen group (p=.50). Mean and median pain scores did not differ between placebo and ibuprofen when nulliparous and parous women were analyzed independently. Overall, median pain scores were 17.5mm higher in nulliparous women than parous women (p=.004). Median pain scores did not differ by age, IUD-type, history of dysmenorrhea or time since aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of ibuprofen 800mg prior to IUD insertion does not reduce pain associated with the procedure for U.S. women. Overall, nulliparous women report more pain with IUD insertion than multiparous women.

Evidence-based pain management for endometrial biopsies and IUD insertions

Intrauterine device (IUD) insertions and endometrial biopsies (EMB) are common outpatient office procedures performed by advanced practice nurses. There are currently no guidelines for pain management with either IUD insertions or EMB procedures. Combination modalities are the most likely to impact pain perception, but more research is required in this area.

Misoprostol for intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of preprocedure misoprostol on intrauterine device (IUD) placement in nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized controlled double-blind trial at the University of New Mexico reproductive health clinic, nulliparous women requesting an IUD were randomized to 400 mcg of buccal misoprostol or placebo 2-8 hours before insertion. Primary outcomes included pain on a 10-cm visual analog scale and women's perception of the value of delaying insertion for an effective medication. Provider ease of insertion and need for adjunctive insertion measures were also assessed, on a visual analog scale. Participants indicated maximum pain after IUD insertion, pain level they would tolerate to avoid delay in IUD insertion, and preference for IUD insertion without delay if an effective medication was available.

RESULTS

Of 85 women enrolled, 3 were ineligible; 42 were randomized to misoprostol and 40 to placebo. There were no differences between groups in worst insertion pain, (5.8 ± 2.0 vs 5.9 ± 2.0, P = .94), provider ease of insertion (2.2 ± 2.2 vs 2.5 ± 2.2; P = .54) or adjunctive measures (14% vs 25%; P = .27). The groups were willing to tolerate the same mean pain (4.9 ± 2.5 vs 5.7 ± 2.4, P = .18) to avoid waiting for medication. The majority of women (85%) preferred to wait for an effective medication.

CONCLUSION

Misoprostol for nulliparous women did not decrease pain or improve the ease of insertion of an IUD. Most women were willing to wait for a medication that decreases pain, indicating a need to pursue alternatives for pain control with IUD insertion.

Practical advice for avoidance of pain associated with insertion of intrauterine contraceptives

Few studies in the scientific literature provide clear direction on the prevention or management of pain associated with intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) placement. Those that have been published have studied small numbers of women and fail to provide definitive conclusions. There are also no guidelines available detailing recognised standard approaches to this problem. The consensus recommendations in this review focus primarily on non-pharmacological and often non-evidence-based interventions. This review includes general considerations, practical recommendations for both routine and more difficult cases and guidance on the optimal choice of instruments. General considerations, including pre-insertion counselling, the setting for the procedure, the confidence and technique of the provider and the interplay between the provider and assistant, can influence women's level of anxiety and, in turn, influence their perception of pain and their overall experience. Further studies are required to refine the optimal strategy for managing pain associated with IUC insertion.

IUDs: beyond the basics

This article reviews the changes in patient selection for intrauterine devices (IUDs) and evidence-based practices regarding counseling and management of common IUD issues. Where evidence-based research is lacking, expert opinion and common standards of practice are reviewed, and current clinical resources are identified.

Sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of a T380A intrauterine device in women with no previous vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether sublingual misoprostol administered one hour before intrauterine device (IUD) insertion reduces failed insertions, insertion-related complications and pain in parous women delivered only by elective caesarean section (CS).

METHODS

Single-blind randomised controlled trial conducted in Ismailia, Egypt, between July 2010 and December 2011. Women who had never delivered otherwise than by elective CS and desirous of using an IUD were randomly allocated to receive sublingually 400 μg misoprostol and 100 mg diclofenac (misoprostol group) or 100 mg diclofenac alone (control group) one hour before IUD insertion. Outcome measures were failed insertion, ease of insertion judged by the investigators, insertion-related complications, and patients' satisfaction.

RESULTS

In all, 255 women (130 and 125 in the study and control groups, respectively) had an IUD inserted. Seven insertions failed: five in the control group, and two in the study group. Ease of insertion and patients' satisfaction were comparable in both groups. Abdominal pain and nausea were the commonest side effects reported in the misoprostol group.

CONCLUSION

Sublingual administration of misoprostol one hour before IUD insertion in parous women with no previous vaginal delivery does not facilitate the procedure and may cause undesirable side effects. This approach is not recommended as a standard treatment.

Management of pain associated with the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives

BACKGROUND

Most intrauterine contraception (IUC) placements do not require pain relief. However, small proportions of nulliparous (∼17%) and parous (∼11%) women experience substantial pain that needs to be proactively managed. This review critically evaluates the evidence for pain management strategies, formulates evidence-based recommendations and identifies data gaps and areas for further research.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was undertaken. Relevant articles on management of pain associated with IUC insertion, published in English between 1980 and November 2012, were identified using the following search terms: ‘intrauterine contraception’, ‘insertion’ and ‘pain’. RCTs were included; further relevant articles were also identified and included as appropriate.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were identified and included: 12 RCTs and one non-randomized study of pre-insertion oral analgesia, cervical priming and local anaesthesia; one systematic review and one RCT on post-insertion analgesia and two non-randomized studies on non-pharmacological interventions. There was no conclusive evidence that any prophylactic pharmacological intervention reduces pain associated with IUC insertion. However, most of the regimens studied were adopted from hysteroscopy or abortion and effectiveness in specific subsets of women has not been studied adequately. A systematic review found non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAID) to be effective in reactively treating post-insertion pain, but no benefit was found with prophylactic use.

CONCLUSIONS

No prophylactic pharmacological intervention has been adequately evaluated to support routine use for pain reduction during or after IUC insertion. Women's anxiety about the procedure may contribute to higher levels of perceived pain, which highlights the importance of counselling, and creating a trustworthy, unhurried and professional atmosphere in which the experience of the provider also has a major role; a situation frequently referred to as ‘verbal anaesthesia’.

Practical tips for intrauterine devices use in adolescents

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has endorsed intrauterine devices (IUDs) as first-line contraceptive choices for both nulliparous and parous adolescents. The committee opinion did address some of the practical elements of IUD use in adolescents, but because these practical concerns may be barriers to use for both teens and clinicians, this review is devoted to "practical tips," based on the available literature as well as the author's clinical experience. Counseling, informed consent, techniques of pain management, and preventive guidance about possible side effects are addressed in an effort to promote successful use of this long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) option.

Failed IUD insertions in community practice: an under-recognized problem?

BACKGROUND

The data analysis was conducted to describe the rate of unsuccessful copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD) insertions among women using the IUD for emergency contraception (EC) at community family planning clinics in Utah.

METHODS

These data were obtained from a prospective observational trial of women choosing the copper T380A IUD for EC. Insertions were performed by nurse practitioners at two family planning clinics in order to generalize findings to the type of service setting most likely to employ this intervention. Adjuvant measures to facilitate difficult IUD insertions (cervical anesthesia, dilation, pain medication, and use of ultrasound guidance) were not utilized. The effect of parity on IUD insertion success was determined using exact logistic regression models adjusted for individual practitioner failure rates.

RESULTS

Six providers performed 197 IUD insertion attempts. These providers had a mean of 14.1 years of experience (range 1-27, S.D. ±12.5). Among nulliparous women, 27 of 138 (19.6%) IUD insertions were unsuccessful. In parous women, 8 of 59 IUD insertions were unsuccessful (13.6%). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) showed that IUD insertion failure was more likely in nulliparous women compared to parous women (aOR=2.31, 95% CI 0.90-6.52, p=.09).

CONCLUSION

The high rate of unsuccessful IUD insertions reported here, particularly for nulliparous women, suggests that the true insertion failure rate of providers who are not employing additional tools for difficult insertions may be much higher than reported in clinical trials. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this is a common problem and, if so, to assess if the use of adjuvant measures will reduce the number of unsuccessful IUD insertions.

Intrauterine infusion of lidocaine does not reduce pain scores during IUD insertion

BACKGROUND

Potential pain with IUD insertion is a concern for women. Studies have found that systemic and local cervical therapies do not reduce pain scores. Since intrauterine infusion of lidocaine may reduce pain with endometrial aspiration, in this pilot study, we tested whether such infusion through an inexpensive endometrial aspirator could reduce IUD insertion pain scores with IUD insertion.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo control pilot study of 40 women undergoing IUD insertion, pain scores of women receiving 1.2 mL 2% lidocaine versus normal saline (1:1) infused 3 min prior to IUD insertion were measured using a 0-9-point scale.

RESULTS

Pain at tenaculum placement was similar between groups. There was no difference in mean pain scores during IUD insertion of women infused with lidocaine (2.95) versus normal saline (3.75), p=.37. Considerable variation in pain scores was noted; 46% of subjects had pain scores ≤2 while 33% had pain scores ≥5.

CONCLUSION

Use of 2% lidocaine administered through an endometrial aspirator did not significantly reduce IUD insertion pain scores in this pilot study.

Role of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in effective contraception

Norgestrel, a synthetic progestin chemically derived from 19-nortestosterone, is six times more potent than progesterone, with variable binding affinity to various steroid receptors. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS) provides a long-acting, highly effective, and reversible form of contraception, with a pearl index of 0.18 per 100 women-years. The locally released hormone leads to endometrial concentrations that are 200-800 times those found after daily oral use and a plasma level that is lower than that with other forms of levonorgestrel-containing contraception. The contraceptive effect of the LNG IUS is achieved mainly through its local suppressive effect on the endometrium, leading to endometrial thinning, glandular atrophy, and stromal decidualization without affecting ovulation. The LNG IUS is generally well tolerated. The main side effects are related to its androgenic activity, which is usually mild and transient, resolving after the first few months. Menstrual abnormalities are also common but well tolerated, and even become desirable (eg, amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, and oligomenorrhea) with proper counseling of the patient during the choice of the method of contraception. The satisfaction rates after 3 years of insertion are high, reaching between 77% and 94%. The local effect of the LNG IUS on the endometrium and low rates of systemic adverse effects have led to its use in other conditions rather than contraception, as for the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia, benign menorrhagia, endometriosis, adenomyosis, and uterine fibroids.

Cervical lidocaine for IUD insertional pain: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Anticipated pain with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion may be a barrier to widespread use. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of intracervical 2% lidocaine gel for pain relief with IUD insertion.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of women undergoing IUD insertion. Participants were randomly assigned to 2% lidocaine or placebo gel. Study gel (3 mL) was placed 3 minutes prior to IUD insertion. Pain scores were measured at various time points using a 10-point visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Of the 200 participants randomized, 199 completed the study. Pain scores among lidocaine and placebo arms were similar at tenaculum placement (lidocaine and placebo: median, 4; range, 0-10; P = .15) and with insertion (lidocaine: median, 5; range, 1-10; placebo: median, 6; range, 0-10; P = .16). These results did not differ by parity.

CONCLUSION

Topical or intracervical 2% lidocaine gel prior to IUD insertion does not decrease pain scores.