Predicting painful or difficult intrauterine device insertion in nulligravid women

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.

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.

Effects of virtual reality on pain during intrauterine device insertions: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The trial aimed to compare the pain perceived by women during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, with or without virtual reality (VR) therapy. Furthermore, anxiety during the insertions, pain after the insertions, and satisfaction with the insertions were compared.

METHODS

The trial was designed as a prospective, bi-centric, randomized, open-label interventional trial. All adult women that chose an IUD during a contraceptive consultation, and who provided informed consent were eligible. Women under legal guardianship, not affiliated to a national social security system, and with pre-existing dizziness, severe facial wounds, or epilepsy were not eligible. Eligible women were randomly allocated either standard care without VR therapy (Control group) or with VR therapy (Experimental group). Pain, anxiety, and satisfaction were measured using a 10-cm numerical scale.

RESULTS

Between September 2020 and April 2022, 100 women were randomized: 50 to each group. The mean pain scores during IUD insertion were 5.4 cm in the Control group versus 5.1 cm in the Experimental group (p = 0.54). Mean anxiety during insertion were 4.8 cm in the Control group versus 4.2 cm in the Experimental group (p = 0.13). While mean pain perceived after insertions were 2.4 cm in the Control Group and 2.4 cm in the Experimental group (p = 0.98). Mean satisfaction with the insertions was 9.6 cm in both groups (p = 0.87). Anxiety before IUD insertion, as well as anticipated pain, were significantly correlated with pain perceived during insertions.

CONCLUSIONS

VR therapy performed during the procedure did not alleviate perceived pain in women undergoing IUD insertions.

Avaliação da dor e seus fatores associados durante a inserção do dispositivo intrauterino na Atenção Primária à Saúde

Introdução: A inserção do dispositivo intrauterino é uma competência esperada para o médico generalista. No entanto, esse método encontra muitas barreiras ao ser inserido nas unidades básica de saúde, como a falta de treinamento dos profissionais e o medo que as mulheres têm de sentir dor. Objetivo: Avaliar a intensidade da dor durante o procedimento de inserção do dispositivo intrauterino realizado por médicos generalistas em unidades básicas de saúde na região metropolitana de João Pessoa e sua associação com fatores sociodemográficos, aspectos clínicos da mulher e formação médica. Métodos: Estudo transversal e descritivo, com dados coletados em 16 unidades básicas de saúde nos municípios de Conde, Caaporã, João Pessoa e Sapé, no intervalo de março a outubro de 2019. A coleta de dados foi realizada por entrevista individual com questionário estruturado, e a dor foi graduada pela escala visual analógica. Os dados foram analisados utilizando-se os testes de Mann-Whitney e χ². Resultados: Participaram do estudo 139 mulheres com idade mínima de 14 e máxima de 47 anos, cuja média de dor foi de 5,5 para aquelas que estavam menstruadas e de 4,6 para as que não estavam. A dor leve esteve presente em 20,1%, a dor moderada em 38% e dor intensa em 31,7%. Histerometria acima de 7 cm, histórico de uso de anti-inflamatórios na menstruação e de dismenorreia estiveram mais presentes em quem referiu dor intensa (p<0,001). Quanto à qualificação do médico que insere o dispositivo intrauterino, não houve significância estatística na correlação de dor intensa com o fato de ele ser residente (p=0,268), com o tempo de formatura (p=0,080) nem com a dificuldade técnica encontrada (p=0,065). Conclusões: A dor foi considerada pela maioria das mulheres como moderada, sendo uma oferta e um procedimento viável de ser ensinado e inserido na Atenção Primária à Saúde.

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.

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.

Vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To systematically and meta-analytically investigate the efficacy and safety of vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo in pain relief during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were screened till 1 October 2020. Only randomised placebo-controlled studies were included and assessed for risk of bias. Main outcomes included IUD insertion related pain, patient satisfaction, provider ease of IUD insertion, and side effects. Pooled outcomes were summarised as standardised mean difference (SMD), weighted mean difference (WMD), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS

Five studies were included, comprising 862 patients; equally 431 patients received vaginal dinoprostone and placebo. All studies showed an overall low risk of bias. When compared to placebo, dinoprostone significantly correlated with decreased pain at tenaculum placement (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.43, -0.16], p = 0.01), decreased pain at uterine sounding (SMD = -0.88, 95% CI [-1.54, -0.22], p = 0.009), decreased pain at IUD insertion (SMD = -1.18, 95% CI [-1.74, -0.61], p < 0.001), decreased need for additional analgesia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.22, 0.53], p < 0.001), increased patient satisfaction (SMD = 1.41, 95% CI [0.62, 2.20], p < 0.001), and increased provider ease of IUD insertion (SMD = -1.17, 95% CI [-1.62, -0.73], p < 0.001). Fever was statistically significantly higher in dinoprostone versus placebo group (RR = 3.73, 95% CI [1.47, 9.44], p = 0.006). All other side effects-including nausea, vomiting, shivering, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, vasovagal attack, uterine perforation, and postprocedural bleeding-did not substantially differ between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This first ever meta-analysis advocates that dinoprostone compared with placebo is safe, effective, and yields favourable analgesic outcomes during IUD insertion.

Intrauterine device use is safe among nulligravidas and adolescent girls

The use of intrauterine devices (IUDs), including the copper-bearing device and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), is safe among nulligravidas and adolescent girls. However, several misconceptions limit their use in clinical practice; health-care providers are hesitant to prescribe IUDs, and several myths associated with their usage in nulligravidas and adolescents exist among both providers and women themselves. The high rates of unplanned pregnancies (which in many settings constitute a public health issue, primarily among adolescent females) can be attributed at least partially to lack of awareness and limited use of highly effective contraceptives such as IUDs. In this review, we discuss the role of non-hormonal and hormonal IUDs as effective contraceptives in nulligravidas and adolescent girls. We present a literature review of data that highlight contraceptive efficacy, side effects (including reasons for discontinuation), and continuation rates with the method. We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases for all articles published in English between January 1990 through September 2020. A large body of evidence confirmed the effectiveness of IUD/IUS, independent of age and parity. Studies showed a high expulsion rate among adolescents but not among nulligravidas. Additionally, bleeding patterns among adolescents and nulligravidas were similar to those observed among adults and parous women. The high early removal rates observed in adolescents were attributable to bleeding and/or pain, which indicate that compared with adults, adolescents are less likely to accept IUD-induced side effects. IUD placement is an excellent strategy to avoid the high rates of unplanned pregnancies in adolescents and nulligravidas. IUDs are more effective than short-acting reversible contraceptives with failure rates that are equivalent to those observed with permanent contraception. However, few long-term studies have investigated this category of women to definitively establish the role of IUD/IUS as effective means of contraception.

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.

Benefits of vaginal dinoprostone administration prior to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion in women delivered only by elective cesarean section: a randomized double-blinded clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed at investigating the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone 3 mg vaginally prior to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) insertion in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial at family planning clinic of Cairo University hospitals from August 2019 to January 2020. We included 200 women aged ≥ 18 years who previously delivered by elective CD willing to receive LNG-IUS. Women were randomly assigned with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive 3 mg vaginal dinoprostone or placebo tablets two hours before LNG-IUS insertion. Our main outcomes were patient-reported pain during insertion and 30 min post-procedure, ease of insertion, satisfaction, duration of insertion, and different side effects.

RESULTS

Patient-perceived pain during LNG-IUS insertion was significantly reduced in dinoprostone compared to placebo (4.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.4 ± 1.3; p < 0.001). Dinoprostone reduced pain scores 30 min post-procedure compared to placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant (3.5 ± 1.1 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p = 0.25). Satisfaction score was higher in dinoprostone compared to placebo (7.9 ± 1.0 vs 5.9 ± 0.8; p < 0.001). The insertion was significantly easier and shorter in dinoprostone than placebo (3.9 ± 1.1 vs 5.9 ± 1.1; p < 0.001) and (5.6 ± 0.9 vs 7.2 ± 0.8; p < 0.001), respectively. Adverse events were not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Dinoprostone administration 2 h before LNG-IUS insertion in women delivered by elective CD effectively reduced pain during insertion and 30 min post-procedure. Women received dinoprostone had easier and shorter insertion and were more satisfied with tolerable side effects.

Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fear of pain during the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives is a barrier to using these methods, especially for nulligravidas. An intracervical block may be easier and more reproducible than a paracervical block; however, this intervention has not been evaluated in nulligravid women to reduce pain with intrauterine contraceptive insertion.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block reduces pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas; and, in addition, to assess whether the intracervical block has any effect on the ease of device insertion and on the overall experience with the procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, nulligravidas were block-randomized to 1 of 3 arms prior to 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: 3.6-mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block, sham injection (intracervical dry-needling), or no intervention. The primary outcome was pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. Secondary outcomes were pain at tenaculum placement, ease of insertion (assessed by healthcare providers), and the overall experience with the procedure (pain with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion compared with expectations, discomfort level, wish to undergo another device insertion in the future, and recommendation of the procedure to others). Participants' pain was measured with a 10-cm visual analogue scale and a 5-point Faces Pain Scale. Pain was summarized into categories (none, mild, moderate, severe) and also analyzed as a continuous variable (mean and 95% confidence interval). Our sample size had 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect a 15% difference in pain score measured by visual analogue scale (mean [standard deviation] visual analogue scale score = 5.9 [2.0] cm) and an absolute difference of 20% in the proportion of women reporting severe pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among groups. We used a χ² test and a mixed-effects linear regression model. We calculated the number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion.

RESULTS

A total of 302 women were randomized (99 to the intracervical block, 101 to the intracervical sham, and 102 to no intervention), and 300 had a successful device insertion. The intracervical block group had fewer women reporting severe pain than the other groups, both at tenaculum placement (intracervical block: 2% vs sham: 30.2% vs no intervention: 15.2%, P < .0001) and at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion (intracervical block: 26.5% vs sham: 59.4% vs no intervention: 50.5%, P < .0001). The mean (95% confidence interval) pain score reported at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was lower in the intracervical block group than in the other groups (intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs sham: 6.6 [6.2-7.0], P < .0001; intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs no intervention: 5.8 [5.3-6.4], P < .0001). Women from the intracervical block group reported less pain than expected (P < .0001), rated the insertion as less uncomfortable (P < .0001), and were more willing to undergo another device insertion in the future (P < .01) than women in the other groups. The ease of insertion were similar among groups. The number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was 2 and 4, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block decreased pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas. It also provided a better overall experience during the procedure.

International Perspectives: IUDs and Adolescents

Unplanned or unwanted pregnancy among adolescents is a worldwide public health issue. In many countries unmarried young women are denied contraceptive services. Long-acting reversible contraceptive methods such as the intrauterine devices (IUDs) have been shown to be more effective than short-acting such as the pill, and safe also for adolescents. The popularity has varied a lot with time and between populations. Health care providers, health system, and user factors all influence IUD use. A good sexuality education through school provides a foundation, and health care providers give specific individual counseling. International and country-specific guidelines have been published during the past decade indicating the advantage of IUDs. New smaller size devices make placement easier for nulliparous adolescents. Still the uptake has remained rather low in most regions, cost being one barrier. Several municipalities have started to provide long-acting reversible contraceptive methods for adolescents free of charge, and this has led to a significant increase in IUD use, accompanied by a reduction in abortion rates. Adolescent-friendly services should offer low-cost or free contraception, including male and female condoms, emergency contraception, and a full range of modern methods, including long-acting reversible methods, according to adolescents' preferences and needs.

Interventions for the prevention of pain associated with the placement of intrauterine contraceptives: An updated review

A 2013 review found no evidence to support the routine use of pain relief for intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) placement; however, fear of pain with placement continues to be a barrier to use for some women. This narrative review set out to identify (1) new evidence that may support routine use of pain management strategies for IUC placement; (2) procedure‐related approaches that may have a positive impact on the pain experience; and (3) factors that may help healthcare professionals identify women at increased risk of pain with IUC placement. A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane library databases revealed 550 citations, from which we identified 43 new and pertinent studies for review. Thirteen randomized clinical trials, published since 2012, described reductions in placement‐related pain with administration of oral and local analgesia (oral ketorolac, local analgesia with different lidocaine formulations) and cervical priming when compared with placebo or controls. Four studies suggested that ultrasound guidance, balloon dilation, and a modified placement device may help to minimize the pain experienced with IUC placement. Eight publications suggested that previous cesarean delivery, timing of insertion relative to menstruation, dysmenorrhea, expected pain, baseline anxiety, and size of insertion tube may affect the pain experienced with IUC placement. Oral and local analgesia and cervical priming can be effective in minimizing IUC placement‐related pain when compared with placebo, but routine use remains subject for debate. Predictive factors may help healthcare professionals to identify women at risk of experiencing pain. Targeted use of effective strategies in these women may be a useful approach while research continues in this area.

[Intrauterine contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

OBJECTIVE

To provide national clinical guidelines focusing on intrauterine contraception.

METHODS

A systematic review of available literature was performed using Pubmed and Cochrane libraries. American, British and Canadian guidelines were considered as well.

RESULTS

Intrauterine contraception (IUC) displays a wide panel of indications, including adolescents, nulliparous, patients living with HIV before AIDS (Grade B) and women with history of ectopic pregnancy (Grade C). Cervical cancer screening should not be modified in women with IUC (Grade B). Bimanual examination and cervix inspection are mandatory before device insertion (Grade B). Patients should not systematically undergo screening for sexually transmitted infections (STI) before device insertion (Grade B). Screening for STI should be preferably done before insertion but it can be performed at the time of device insertion in asymptomatic women (Grade B). Routine antibiotic prophylaxis and premedication are not recommended before insertion (Grade A). A follow-up visit may be offered several weeks after insertion (Professional consensus). Routine pelvic ultrasound examination in not recommended after device insertion (Grade B). In patients with IUC, unscheduled bleeding, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, requires further investigation to rule out complication (Professional agreement). Suspected uterine perforation warrants radiological workup to locate the device (Professional consensus). Laparoscopic approach should be preferred for elective removal of intrauterine device from abdominal cavity (Professional consensus). In case of accidental pregnancy with intrauterine device in situ, ectopic pregnancy should be excluded (Grade B). In case of viable and desired intrauterine pregnancy, intrauterine device removal is recommended if the strings are reachable (Grade C). Detection of Actinomyces-like organisms on pap smear in asymptomatic patients with intrauterine contraception does not require further intervention (Grade B). Immediate removal of intrauterine device is not recommended in case of STI or pelvic inflammatory disease (Grade B). Device removal should be considered in the absence of clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate treatment (Grade B).

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine contraception is a long-acting and reversible contraception method displaying great efficacy and high continuation rate. In contrast, complication rate is low. It should thus be offered to both nulliparous and multiparous women.

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.

Contraception options: Aspects unique to adolescent and young adult

Sexual health for adolescents is based on three components: recognizing sexual rights, sexuality education and counseling, and thirdly confidential high quality services. Contraception needs to include prevention of both STIs and pregnancies. The first option for adolescents is condoms backed-up by emergency contraception; and later hormonal contraceptives in a longer, mutually monogamous relationship. Condoms and hormonal contraception together can be well recommended for adolescents for dual protection. Long acting reversible contraception (LARC) including both intrauterine contraception and implants are safe and highly effective and thus well suited for adolescents. Improved contraceptive methods do not automatically lead to reduced numbers of adolescent abortions. When sexuality education, proper counseling and sexual health services are all provided, it is possible to profoundly improve adolescent sexual health.

Experimental and procedural pain responses in primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review

Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) has been the focus of a number of experimental pain studies. Although a number of reviews exist, few have critically evaluated the existing body of research on PD and experimental and procedural pain. Data from 19 published research articles that include women with PD and responses to an experimental or procedural pain stimulus (or stimuli) suggest that women with PD may have elevated pain reactivity, as compared to women without PD. This pattern appears to be true across different phases of the menstrual cycle. However, there is an abundance of conflicting findings, which may be due to significant methodological issues such as inconsistent definitions of PD, wide variation in experimental pain methodologies, and inaccurate assessment of the menstrual cycle. Future research should focus on identifying specific symptoms (i.e., pain threshold ratings) to more clearly define what constitutes PD, establish reliable and valid laboratory testing protocols, and assess the menstrual cycle with greater precision.

Different analgesics prior to intrauterine device insertion: is there any evidence of efficacy?

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to compare three different interventions to reduce pain related to insertion of the intrauterine device (IUD), namely, lidocaine, misoprostol and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, against a placebo, and to assess the advantages of one drug over another, if any.

METHODS

This was an open-label randomised placebo-controlled trial of 200 women assigned to receive one of the following medications prior to IUD insertion: 10 ml 1% lidocaine paracervical block, 400 μg oral misoprostol, oral naproxen or placebo tablets. The primary outcome measure was the level of pain experienced at different steps of IUD insertion and 15 min after the procedure, measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Between July 2015 and March 2016, 208 women were invited to participate in the study: eight refused and the remaining 200 women were randomised equally into four treatment groups (50 participants in each group). All characteristics were similar between the groups. The mean pain scores recorded during speculum placement, tenaculum application, uterine sounding, IUD insertion and 15 min after insertion were similar among the four groups (p > .05). Adjuvant methods to facilitate insertion, insertion failure or device expulsion were similar between the groups (p > .05). Complications were reported in 17 participants (8.5%); all resolved spontaneously with no further management (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Despite finding that none of the study drugs seemed effective prior to IUD insertion, insertion did not cause severe pain. The negative findings indicate the need for future research into new strategies to decrease pain during IUD placement.

Intrauterine contraception insertion pain: nursing interventions to improve patient experience

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine factors which contribute to the individual's experience of pain in relation to intrauterine contraception insertion and determine evidence-based nursing strategies to best assess and manage this pain.

BACKGROUND

Nurses are increasingly involved in consultations regarding intrauterine contraception. However, concerns regarding painful or difficult insertion may inhibit uptake and discourage nurses from promoting or inserting intrauterine contraception.

DESIGN

Integrative review.

METHODS

Database searches of CINAHL, PubMed, Wiley Online Library and the Cochrane Collaboration for relevant literature. Eight papers met the inclusion criteria and were analysed using an integrative review process.

RESULTS

Physical causes and pharmacological interventions for insertion pain have been thoroughly investigated. Absence of previous vaginal delivery and anxiety may increase the likelihood of procedural pain. The literature fails to conclusively determine any universally effective prophylactic analgesia. Cervical anaesthesia may be beneficial in some cases and oral analgesia may relieve postprocedural pain. Distraction in the form of conversation, music or television can be effective in reducing anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of physical, psychological and environmental factors contribute to the individual's pain experience. Nurses have the potential to make a significant impact on pain outcomes by demonstrating clinical expertise and creating a trustful environment. Giving reliable information, acknowledging the significance of anxiety and providing reassurance and distraction are effective pain reducing strategies. Research into nonpharmacological approaches is warranted, especially those which reduce anxiety.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Increasing uptake of long-acting reversible contraception is a public health goal. Providing effective pain management strategies to improve patient experience may encourage more nurses to recommend, or enhance their scope of practice to include, intrauterine contraception insertion.

Uterine Length in Adolescents with Developmental Disability: Are Ultrasound Examinations Necessary before Insertion of the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

(1) To determine if there are any differences in uterine length between adolescents with developmental disability (DD) compared with their normally developing (ND) peers that might necessitate ultrasonography before insertion of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in patients with DD; and (2) to characterize the LNG-IUS insertion procedure in adolescents with disabilities.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 223 female adolescents with or without DDs. Seventy-five adolescents had DD; 33 underwent intrauterine system insertion in the operating room and 42 did not. A comparative cohort of 148 ND adolescents who had pelvic ultrasound examinations for abnormal uterine bleeding were included. The study period was between January 2006 and July 2013 at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. Cases were identified from surgical databases and medical records.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean uterine length on pelvic ultrasound, demographic characteristics (age, age at menarche, time from menarche to ultrasound, weight), and descriptive statistics on intrauterine system insertion.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference (P = .03) in uterine length between adolescents with and without DD (6.7 vs 7.1 cm). However, this was not a clinically significant difference because insertion of the LNG-IUS in patients with DD was successful in patients with uteri more than 5 cm long. There was no difference (P = .97) in uterine length of adolescents with DD whether they had LNG-IUS insertion or not (6.7 cm). Adolescents with DD were younger than adolescents without DD at time of ultrasound examination (P = .01). However, among patients with DD, those who underwent intrauterine system insertion were older (P = .001). Incidence of uterine anomaly in patients with DD is low (2.7%) and was the same as in ND adolescents. Rates of complications and expulsions were low and there were no failures of LNG-IUS insertion in adolescents with DD.

CONCLUSION

Routine pelvic ultrasound examinations are not necessary before insertion of the LNG-IUS for menstrual suppression in adolescents with DD. Renal abnormalities, obstructive symptoms, and very small stature might necessitate imaging. Insertion using anesthesia is often straightforward and successful with minimal complications.

Femilis(®) 60 Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System-A Review of 10 Years of Clinical Experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to update the clinical experience with the Femilis® 60 levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), now up to 10 years in parous and nulliparous women, particularly with regard to ease and safety of insertion, contraceptive performance, retention, acceptability, continuation of use, impact on menstrual blood loss (MBL), and duration of action.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the Femilis® 60 LNG-IUS releasing 20 µg of levonorgestrel/day, the following studies were conducted: an open, prospective noncomparative contraceptive study, an MBL study, a perimenopausal study, a study for the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia, and early cancer of the uterus, a residue study.

RESULTS

A total of 599 Femilis LNG-IUS were inserted in various clinical trials, the majority for contraceptive purposes. The total exposure in the first and second contraceptive studies, covering 558 parous and nulliparous women, was 32,717 woman-months. Femilis has high contraceptive effectiveness as only one pregnancy occurred. Expulsion of the LNG-IUS was rare with only two total and no partial expulsions (stem protruding through the cervical canal) occurred. Femilis was well tolerated, with continuation rates remaining high. Several MBL studies were conducted, totaling 80 heavy and normal menstrual bleeders, using the pictorial bleeding assessment chart method or the quantitative alkaline hematin technique. Virtually all women responded well with strongly reduced menstrual bleeding. Amenorrhea rates were high, up to 80% after three months, and ferritin levels simultaneously increased significantly. The Femilis LNG-IUS was tested in 104 symptomatic perimenopausal women for seamless transition to and through menopause, adding estrogen therapy when required. Patient tolerability appeared high as >80% requested a second and a third LNG-IUS. Twenty women presenting with nonatypical and atypical hyperplasia and one woman presenting with early endometrial carcinoma were treated with Femilis LNG-IUS. All histology specimens showed full regression, and patients remained in remission without signs of hyperplasia or cancer at yearly and ongoing follow-up examinations up to 10 years. Residual content of LNG was measured in 37 women having the Femilis LNG-IUS for up to 10 years. In 10 of the 102 women who had the Femilis 60 in situ for 10 years between 20% and 30% of the original 60 mg was recovered confirming the long duration of action of the Femilis 60 LNG-IUS.

CONCLUSION

These studies suggest that the Femilis 60 LNG-IUS releasing 20 µg of LNG/day is an effective, well-tolerated, and well-retained contraceptive both in parous and in nulliparous women. The design of the LNG-IUS, with flexible transverse arm(s) length of 28 mm, allows for a simplification of the insertion technique and training requirements facilitating the use by nonspecialist providers in either developed or developing countries. For nulliparous women, additional evaluation of devices with a 24 mm transverse arm(s), as it relates to tolerability, retention, and continuation of use, still needs to be undertaken.

Comparison between the traditional non-guided and a novel ultrasound-guided technique for office fitting of intrauterine contraceptive devices

OBJECTIVE

To investigate a novel method for in-office fitting of intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCDs) by comparing it to the traditional non-guided technique.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study comparing the application of intrauterine contraceptives was conducted between January 1, 2013 and January 31, 2015 at a university contraception clinic, in Alexandria, Egypt. Patients aged 20-45years who were parous, had previously undergone vaginal or abdominal deliveries, and were requesting device insertion were included. Patients were randomly assigned to have devices fitted using the non-guided approach, with vaginal ultrasonography to plan and confirm device placement, or by the abdominal ultrasonography-guided technique. The primary outcomes were successful IUCD insertion and ideal device position 1week after insertion. Participants, counselors, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignments.

RESULTS

Analyses included 40 patients in each treatment arm. Successful fitting was achieved in 32 (80%) patients in the non-guided arm and 39 (98%) patients in the ultrasonography-guided arm (P=0.04). Ideal placement was achieved in 38 (95%) patients in the ultrasonography-guided arm compared with 27 (68%) patients in the non-guided arm (P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonography-guided IUCD insertion demonstrated improved success and fitting accuracy in comparison with a traditional, non-guided approach. ANZCTR trial ID: ACTRN12615000526572.

Intrauterine systems: a frameless future?

INTRODUCTION

Intrauterine devices (IUD) are viewed as important contraceptive methodologies to prevent unintended pregnancy.

AREAS COVERED

This expert opinion examines the place of frameless devices for use in young women in order to minimize side effect, improve patient comfort and maximize continuation of use to help reduce unintended pregnancies.

EXPERT OPINION

Frameless designed IUDs have the ability to be used in both small and large uterine cavities of varied shapes and can significantly reduce abnormal bleeding, pain, embedment and expulsion and likely account for higher continuation rates than that seen with framed IUDs.

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.

Practical Advice for Emergency IUD Contraception in Young Women

Too few women are aware of the very high efficacy of intrauterine copper devices (IUDs) to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Women who frequently engage in unprotected intercourse or seek emergency contraception (EC) are at high risk of unplanned pregnancy and possible abortion. It is therefore important that these women receive precise and accurate information about intrauterine devices as they may benefit from using an IUD for EC as continuing contraception. Copper IUDs should be used as first choice options given their rapid onset of action and their long-term contraceptive action which require minimal thought or intervention on the part of the user. In the United States, there is only one copper IUD presently available which limits treatment options. There are numerous copper IUDs available for use in EC, however, their designs and size are not always optimal for use in nulliparous women or women with smaller or narrower uteruses. Utilization of frameless IUDs which do not require a larger transverse arm for uterine retention may have distinct advantages, particularly in young women, as they will be suitable for use in all women irrespective of uterine size. This paper provides practical information on EC use with emphasis on the use of the frameless IUD.

Expulsion and continuation rates after postabortion insertion of framed IUDs versus frameless IUDs - review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Early intrauterine device (IUD) discontinuation after insertion immediately following aspiration abortion or after early medical abortion occurs as a consequence of expulsion of the IUD or removal due to side effects. These are often the consequence of the uterine forces impacting on the IUD due to spatial discrepancy with the uterine cavity causing pain, abnormal bleeding, and eventually, removal of the IUD. These women are candidates for repeat pregnancy as they often select less-effective methods or no contraception at all. Repeat abortion could be reduced by giving attention to these factors.

STUDY DESIGN

In order to have an indication on the magnitude of the problem of IUD expulsion or discontinuation, we searched the MEDLINE database for clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and prospective observational studies related to immediate postaspiration termination of pregnancy (TOP) and early medical abortion IUD insertion studies that reported IUD expulsion and IUD continuation rates.

RESULTS

The search identified 17 clinical trials that were suitable based on the data they presented. The majority concerned T-shape IUDs, inserted immediately following surgical (aspiration) pregnancy termination. Two studies were conducted after medical TOP, and four studies were conducted with the frameless IUD inserted after surgical (vacuum aspiration) TOP. The results showed expulsion rates between 0.8% and 17.3% at 8 weeks, up to 5 years after insertion, respectively. In four studies with the frameless IUD, totaling 553 insertions, the expulsion rate was 0.0% in three of them. Follow-up in the latter studies varied between 5 weeks and 54 months. Reported continuation rates with conventional (framed) IUDs were between 33.8% and 80% at 1 year for studies providing 1 year rates and between 68% and 94.1% for studies reporting continuation rates at 6 months. Studies utilizing frameless IUDs reported 1 year continuation rate over 95%.

CONCLUSION

Frameless IUDs, due to their attachment to the uterine fundus, appear to be better retained by the postabortal uterus when compared with conventional framed IUDs. The absence of a frame ensures compatibility with uterine cavity anatomical dimensions, and may therefore result in improved acceptability and continuation rates in comparison with framed IUDs. Both these characteristics of the frameless IUD could help reduce the number of repeat unwanted pregnancies and subsequent abortions in some cases.

Intrauterine device quo vadis? Why intrauterine device use should be revisited particularly in nulliparous women?

Background

Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods, including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the contraceptive implant, are considered the best methods for preventing unintended pregnancies, rapid repeat pregnancy, and abortion in young women. An opinion paper of 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends Mirena and Paragard for use in nulliparous and adolescent women. However, these IUDs are not designed for young women and are not optimal as they often lead to early discontinuation.

Objective

This article was written with the objective to respond to the urgent need to improve intrauterine contraception as it is likely that the objectives of LARC will not be met without significant improvement of IUD design. Anatomical variations in size and shape of the uterus are not sufficiently considered, producing harm and suffering, which often lead to early removal of the IUD.

Proposed problem solving

The article describes why IUDs should be revisited to meet the challenge of LARC and proposes how to solve these problems. The opinion statement presented here may be considered provocative but is based on hundreds of women with IUD problems who consult or are referred to the practices of the authors of this article due to the disproportion between the IUD and their small uterine cavity. The solution is simple but requires a revision of the current design of IUDs. One-dimensional (longitudinal) IUDs are likely to be the first option. Framed devices with shortened transverse arm and IUDs which adapt to the width of the given uterus are viewed as second best.

Conclusion

One of the reasons of the high unintended pregnancy rate in the USA may be the paucity of suitable IUDs. Also, the legal climate in the USA seems to be a problem for developers as many lawsuits have recently been reported. Clinical studies conducted in young nulliparous and adolescent women suggest that IUDs that fit well in the uterine cavity, like a shoe, result in better tolerance, less side effects, and last but not least, higher use continuation rates.