Naproxen Sodium for Pain Control With Intrauterine Device Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

A Mystery Caller Study on Pain Management Options for Intrauterine Device Placement

OBJECTIVES

To understand whether clinics present pain management options for intrauterine device (IUD) placement over the phone and whether these options align with current evidence for effective pain control during placement STUDY DESIGN: We used a mystery shopper approach and a standardized call script to collect information from a diverse, purposive sample of 100 clinics listed on www.bedsider.org.

RESULTS

We reached responsive personnel at 90 of the 100 selected clinics, of whom 32 (36%) would not provide information about pain control for IUD placement by phone or to non-established patients. Of the 58 clinics that provided information, 4 (6.9%) reported that they did not provide any options for pain management, and 54 (93.1%) presented at least one pharmaceutical option. The most common was ibuprofen, which was mentioned by 49 clinics (84.5%). Lidocaine, misoprostol, and naproxen were mentioned by 16 (27.6%), 14 (24.1%), and 3 (5.2%) clinics, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one third of clinics were unable to present pain control options over the phone. Among the 58 clinics that presented options to simulated patients calling to request an IUD placement, evidence-based pain control methods, such as lidocaine blocks, 10% lidocaine spray, or naproxen, were not often presented.

IMPLICATIONS

Given the barriers that pain and pre-procedure anxiety pose to uptake of IUDs, it is important for clinic staff to understand current guidelines for pain management during IUD placement as well as the pain control options offered for IUD placements at their clinic.

Efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing pain during intrauterine device Insertion: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine devices (IUD) are highly effective, but insertion pain deters many. While no consensus exists on gold standard analgesia, practitioners commonly recommend over-the-counter non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This systematic review evaluates NSAID efficacy for pain reduction during IUD insertion.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library using (intrauterine device* OR IUD*) AND (NSAIDs OR non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). The primary outcome was patient-reported pain during IUD insertion. The authors evaluated each publication for bias using the Centre for Evidenced-Based Medine Critical Appraisal Tool for Randomised Control Trials (CEBM).

RESULTS

The search yielded 6,529 studies, retrieving 29 full texts, with 20 meeting inclusion criteria. This review found limited evidence that prophylactic NSAIDs provide clinically significant pain relief for most women. The review included various NSAID types and dosages. Six studies demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in pain (p < 0.05) compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic NSAIDs show limited efficacy in reducing IUD insertion pain, with 70 % of studies reporting no significant benefit. These findings, suggesting lower overall effectiveness than previous research, underscore the need for standardized approaches and further research into meaningful pain relief. Heterogeneity in NSAID types, dosages, and pain assessment methods highlights the need for targeted research to improve patient-centered reproductive healthcare.

IUDs and pain control for adolescents and young adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are safe and effective for most adolescents and young adults (AYA) for both contraception and menstrual management. However, multiple barriers exist to placement, including procedure-associated pain. There has been a recent call to action for healthcare providers to optimize pain management strategies for IUD insertion.

RECENT FINDINGS

Approach to pain management for IUD insertion varies significantly among providers, and there is no standardized approach to comfort optimization. Several methods of pain control for IUD insertion, both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic, have been studied, though many have variable results.

SUMMARY

Approaching IUD insertion counseling through a lens of patient autonomy and reproductive justice will likely improve the patient experience and help providers to work toward enhancing comfort during the procedure. Further research is needed to determine optimal pain control strategies for IUD insertion.

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.

Pain Management During Intrauterine Device Insertion in Nulliparous Women: A Scoping Review

This study investigates the various methods of pain management during the insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) in nulliparous women. Currently, the only recommended method of pain management is 800 mg of ibuprofen taken one hour before insertion of the IUD. However, women continue to experience pain during the procedure. A scoping review was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase with inclusion criteria being English peer-reviewed articles from the last 10 years, involving nulliparous women of at least 18 years of age. The research reveals that management to minimize pain during IUD insertion can include oral analgesics, cervical blocks, and cervical softening and dilation with prostaglandins. The effect of pain management when using these techniques was further examined throughout the various steps of IUD placement, including cervical grasping, IUD insertion, and post IUD insertion. Ibuprofen is the current recommended analgesic; however, studies show that there was no significant reduction in pain found when ibuprofen is used. Alternatively, 500 mg of naproxen sodium taken prior to IUD insertion showed a significant reduction in post-IUD insertion pain (p=0.01) but did not show any significant reduction in pain during cervical grasping or during IUD insertion into the uterus. Cervical blocks using 1% lidocaine were shown to decrease pain during cervical gripping (p=0.002) and IUD insertion compared to the control group (p=0.005). The results of cervical blocks differed based on whether 1% lidocaine was injected or if a 2% lidocaine gel was used, but no significance was shown. Furthermore, cervical softening and dilation with dinoprostone 3 mg and misoprostol 3 mg demonstrated a reduction in pain during all stages of IUD insertion and after insertion (p<0.01). Pharmacological interventions with oral analgesics, lidocaine, and prostaglandins, such as dinoprostone and misoprostol, have all demonstrated some level of pain control during the IUD insertion procedure, but the use of prostaglandins and 2% lidocaine gel has been demonstrated to have the most clinically significant effect on pain control. Additionally, there has been some research examining the impact of verbal analgesics, which involves the provider using a calm, soothing voice and slow speech to put the patient at ease, and the role that anxiety about IUD insertion can influence pain, but further research is needed to determine its significance. This research provides valuable insight into enhancing the improvement of pain during and after the insertion of IUDs for nulliparous women.

Efficacy of intrauterine device procedural analgesics

ABSTRACT

Nearly half of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. Intrauterine devices are an effective, long-acting form of pregnancy prevention that require minimal maintenance, and also can be used in patients with menorrhagia. However, they are underused because of pain associated with their insertion. Topical and local anesthesia are good options for reducing procedural pain in select patients. IUD placement falls within the scope of practice for physician associates/assistants (PAs) practicing in family medicine, internal medicine, and women's health. PAs should be aware of these additional analgesia options available to patients in order to increase use of effective contraception.

Factors associated with a negative Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) response with intrauterine device placement: A retrospective survey of HER Salt Lake participants

OBJECTIVES

In an established cohort of HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative participants with a prior intrauterine device (IUD) placement, we sought to (1) define the proportion of participants who reported a negative Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) response, (2) explore factors associated with an unacceptable PASS response, and (3) identify pain management preferences for IUD placement.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective survey was sent to 1440 HER Salt Lake IUD users. A PASS question queried IUD placement pain experience acceptability. We explored associations between an unacceptable PASS response and sociodemographic, reproductive and other individual characteristics using t-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of those surveyed, 620 responded (43%), and 41.6% reported an unacceptable PASS response. Those with an unacceptable PASS response reported a significantly higher experienced pain level (79.2 mm vs 51.8 mm; p < 0.01) than those with an acceptable response, were more likely to have an anxiety diagnosis (47.7% vs 37.1%; p < 0.01), and have a trauma history (33.7% vs 25.1%; p = 0.02). Most patients were not offered pain control options, but 29.4% used ibuprofen and 25.3% had a support person. Regardless of PASS response, if offered, 59.0% desired numbing medication, 56.8% ibuprofen, 51% heating pad, 33.2% support person, and 31.8% anti-anxiety medication, among others. In our multivariable logistic regression model, higher pain was associated with unacceptable PASS response (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.08; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The common finding of unacceptable pain experiences with IUD placement may cause negative perceptions of an otherwise desirable method. Incorporation of the PASS response into IUD pain management studies could expand our pain experience understanding.

IMPLICATIONS

IUD placement resulted in unacceptable pain experiences for 41.6% of respondents. Screening for anxiety and trauma history could identify at-risk patients to individualize pain management strategies. Incorporation of the PASS into future IUD pain management studies could result in a more comprehensive, patient-centered measure of patient experiences.

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.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

Verbal analgesia is as good as oral tramadol prior to intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, among nulliparous women: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare two pain management strategies: oral tramadol or a verbal analgesia technique during insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) among nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized, controlled trial, 54 nulliparous women undergoing insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD), from December 2015 to December 2018 were randomized to receive oral tramadol for analgesia or verbal analgesia prior to IUD insertion. Demographic data, clinical symptoms, visual analogue scale (VAS) and complications were reviewed from patient records.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two groups regarding gravidity, age, smoking or body mass index. No significant differences were detected between the groups regarding the procedure, including ease of insertion (p = .415), number of insertion attempts (p = .514) and complications during the insertion (p = .150). Mean pain level by VAS was 4.5 ± 1.6 (range 2-8) for the tramadol group and 4.8 ± 2.4 (0-10) for the verbal analgesia group (p = .610). There was no spontaneous ejection of the IUD in either group, and no endometritis or discomfort that resulted in IUD removal.

CONCLUSION

There was no benefit in using oral tramadol for analgesia prior to IUD insertion among nulliparous women. Verbal analgesia can be a suitable technique for this process and clinicians should become more familiar with its use.

Effect of self-administered vaginal dinoprostone on pain perception during copper intrauterine device insertion in parous women: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE(S)

To assess efficacy and safety of self-administered 3 mg dinoprostone vaginally in reducing pain during copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in parous women.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Family planning clinic in a tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Multiparous women who were attending a family planning clinic and requesting copper IUD insertion.

INTERVENTIONS(S)

We randomly assigned 160 participants into two groups: The dinoprostone group (n = 80) received 3 mg dinoprostone vaginally, and the placebo group (n = 80) received placebo vaginally.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Our primary outcome was mean pain scores during IUD insertion. Our secondary outcomes were mean pain scores during tenaculum application, during uterine sounding, and 15 minutes after insertion, ease of insertion, satisfaction score, need for additional analgesics, and side-effects.

RESULT(S)

Both groups showed no significant difference in anticipated pain score (P=.41), pain during tenaculum placement (P=.22), and pain during sound insertion (P=.07). The dinoprostone group had significantly lower pain scores during IUD insertion (34.8 ± 10.1 vs. 57.8 ± 11.8) and 15 minutes after insertion (20.6 ± 6.4 vs. 29.6 ± 6.2), easier IUD insertion (43.6 ± 21.9 vs. 64.7 ± 18.1), and higher satisfaction (83.9 ± 11.6 vs. 63.0 ± 9.1) compared with the placebo group. Fewer patients required additional analgesics in the dinoprostone group compared with the placebo group (P=.01). Side-effects were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Self-administered 3 mg dinoprostone vaginally before copper IUD insertion in parous women reduces pain scores during IUD insertion, making insertion easier and increasing women's satisfaction, with tolerable side-effects.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04046302.

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.

Paracervical Block for Intrauterine Device Placement Among Nulliparous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain during intrauterine device (IUD) placement.

METHODS

In a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial, women were assigned to receive either a 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block or no block before IUD placement. The primary outcome was pain with IUD placement measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Our sample size had 80% power (α=0.05) to detect a 20-mm difference in visual analog scale scores with a SD of 28 mm. Secondary outcomes included pain with speculum placement, paracervical block administration, tenaculum placement, 5 minutes postprocedure, and overall pain perception.

RESULTS

From October 7, 2014, through October 26, 2017, 64 women were enrolled and analyzed (33 in the paracervical block arm, 31 in the no-block arm). There were no differences in baseline demographics between the groups. Women who received the paracervical block reported less pain with IUD placement compared with women who received no block (median visual analog scale score of 33 mm vs 54 mm, P=.002). Pain was significantly less in the intervention group for uterine sounding (30 mm vs 47 mm, P=.005), 5 minutes after placement (12 mm vs 27 mm, P=.005), and overall pain perception (30 mm vs 51 mm, P=.015). Participants who received the paracervical block experienced more pain with block administration compared with placebo (30 mm vs 8 mm, P=.003). There was no perceived pain difference for speculum insertion (10 mm vs 6 mm, P=.447) or tenaculum placement (15 mm vs 10 mm, P=.268).

CONCLUSION

A 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain with IUD placement (primary outcome), uterine sounding (secondary outcome), and 5 minutes after placement (secondary outcome). Although paracervical block administration can be painful, perception of pain for overall IUD placement procedure is lower compared with no block.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02219308.

Satisfaction With the Intrauterine Device Insertion Procedure Among Adolescent and Young Adult Women

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate satisfaction with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion procedures among adolescent and young adult women.

METHODS

This secondary analysis of data from a multisite, single-blind, sham-controlled randomized trial of women having a levonorgestrel 13.5-mg IUD inserted enrolled participants from March 2015 through July 2016 at three family planning clinics in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Eligible participants were 14-22 years of age, nulliparous, not pregnant, and English-speaking. Randomization was computer-generated allocation in block sizes of four to a 1% lidocaine paracervical or sham block. Only patients were blinded. Satisfaction was measured with three items that assessed overall satisfaction with the procedure, whether participants would recommend the IUD to a friend, and the perception that the IUD was worth the discomfort. Predictors included demographics, sexual and reproductive history, pain after IUD insertion, and treatment group.

RESULTS

Ninety-five women enrolled; 93 (97.9%) were included in the analysis. Forty-five (47.4%) were white, 34 (36.0%) were black, 62 (66.0%) were privately insured, and 75 (79.0%) had used contraception previously. Most (n=73 [76.8%]) reported high overall satisfaction with the procedure, 64 (67.4%) would recommend an IUD to a friend, and 79 (83.2%) perceived the IUD was worth the discomfort. The odds of reporting high overall satisfaction were lower among adolescents compared with young adults (odds ratio [OR] 0.07, 95% CI 0.008-0.68); those who never had a gynecologic examination compared with those who had (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.99); and decreased as pain score increased (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99). Higher pain scores were negatively correlated with the odds of recommending an IUD to a friend and perceiving the IUD was worth the discomfort.

CONCLUSION

Adolescent and young adult women report high levels of satisfaction after the IUD insertion procedure. Young age, lack of experience with gynecologic examinations, and high pain were inversely related to satisfaction.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02352714.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.