Comparing Transcervical Intrauterine Lidocaine Instillation with Rectal Diclofenac for Pain Relief During Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Determining the Optimal Time Interval between Vaginal Dinoprostone Administration and Diagnostic Office Hysteroscopy in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized, Double-blind Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal timing of vaginal dinoprostone administration before office hysteroscopy (OH) in nulliparous women.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind trial.

SETTING

Tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 180 nulliparous women undergoing diagnostic OH.

INTERVENTIONS

We randomly allocated the women to long-interval or short-interval dinoprostone groups: three mg dinoprostone was administered vaginally 12 hours before OH in the long-interval group and 3 hours before OH in the short-interval group.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was pain during OH measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 = no pain; 100 = worst pain imaginable). The secondary outcomes were ease of hysteroscope passage, patient satisfaction score, and drug-related adverse effects. The patients in the long-interval dinoprostone group had lower pain scores during OH (p <.001). Contrarily, pain scores 30 minutes after the procedure were similar in both groups (p = .1). The patient satisfaction score was higher and clinicians found hysteroscope passage through the cervical canal easier and quicker in the long-interval dinoprostone group than in the short-interval group (p <.001, p = .003, and p <.001, respectively). Side effects were comparable in both study groups.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal dinoprostone administered 12 hours before OH was more effective than that administered 3 hours before OH in reducing pain during OH in nulliparous women, with easier hysteroscope insertion, shorter procedure duration, and higher patient satisfaction score.

Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of tramadol during office hysteroscopy

Office hysteroscopy (OH) is a common procedure in gynecology. Pain is the most frequently reported problem in OH. In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of tramadol administration in relieving pain in women undergoing OH. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant clinical trials based on our search terms. We included randomized controlled trials and included all published trials in all six searched databases from their inception until February 28th 2021. We included pain as the primary outcome, and the incidence of adverse events of tramadol as secondary outcomes. We performed the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD) and dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR). We found that tramadol led to significantly less pain during the actual procedure [MD=-1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-1.66, -0.88); p<0.001], immediately after the procedure [MD=-1.03, 95% CI: (-1.40, -0.67); p<0.001], and 30 minutes after the procedure [MD=-0.74, 95% CI: (-1.06, -0.41); p<0.001]. Regarding safety endpoints, no significant difference was noted for dizziness [RR=1.88, 95% CI: (0.79, 4.47); p=0.16] or vomiting [RR=1.80, 95% CI: (0.40, 8.18); p=0.45]. Based on the available data, we conclude that tramadol administration seems to be both effective and safe for patients undergoing office hysteroscopy.

Local anaesthesia for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types and routes of administration of local anaesthetic for pain control during and after office hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until October 2019, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials investigating the use of a local anaesthetic compared to a control, for pain relief in women undergoing diagnostic or operative office hysteroscopy. Average pain scores and data regarding side-effects, feasibility, complications, acceptability and satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 612 citations. A total of 37 studies were included for systematic review, of which data from 20 studies were used for meta-analysis. Local anaesthesia was associated with significantly reduced pain during (SMD -0.57, 95 % CI -0.79 to -0.34) and after (SMD -0.30, 95 % CI -0.54 to -0.06) office hysteroscopy but did not reduce vasovagal episodes (OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.50-1.09). A reduction in intra-procedural pain was observed regardless of type or route of administration. Local anaesthesia did not significantly reduce the risk of procedural failure (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.47-1.11). Insufficient data regarding complications, acceptability and satisfaction were available for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Local anaesthesia via any route of genital tract administration, should be considered when undertaking office diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy to reduce pain during and after the procedure. Further research is needed to understand whether the pain control benefits of local anaesthesia remain apparent with vaginoscopic approaches to office hysteroscopy that avoid genital tract instrumentation.

Pain management during diagnostic office hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women: a randomized study

Objective: This study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of lidocaine versus tramadol versus placebo in reducing the pain of diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy (OH) in postmenopausal women.Materials and methods: This randomized double-blinded study included 156 menopausal women who received intrauterine lidocaine infusion or oral tramadol (50 mg) or placebo before diagnostic OH (52 women/group). Primary outcome was pain severity during the procedure using a 10-cm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes were pain scores 10 and 30 min post procedure, satisfaction level, and ease of cervical entry.Results: Lidocaine had lower pain scores compared to placebo during and 10 min after the procedure (p < 0.001). Tramadol had lower pain scores than placebo during the procedure (p = 0.04), 10 min after the procedure (p = 0.03), and 30 min after the procedure (p = 0.04). Both lidocaine and tramadol resulted in an easier procedure than placebo (p < 0.001 and p = 0.04, respectively). Lidocaine had an easier cervical entry compared to tramadol (p = 0.004). Satisfaction scores in the lidocaine and tramadol groups were significantly higher than in the placebo group (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Lidocaine and tramadol were effective in reducing postmenopausal women-reported pain during and after diagnostic OH. However, lidocaine was better than tramadol in facilitating hysteroscope passage through the cervical canal and the reduction in pain levels with lidocaine was clinically relevant.Trial registration number: NCT03701984.

Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. Pain is the primary reason for abandonment of procedure or incomplete assessment. There is no consensus upon routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy, compared with placebo, no treatment or other pharmacological therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of pharmacological interventions with other pharmacological interventions and pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was mean pain score.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTS (3304 participants), of which only 19 reported data suitable for analysis. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in most of the domains assessed. The evidence was low or very low quality, mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. Baseline pain scores were relatively low in all groups. Analgesic versus placebo or no treatment Local anaesthetics Local anaesthetics reduced mean pain scores during the procedure [(SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.19, 10 RCTs, 1496 women, I2 = 80%, low-quality evidence)] and within 30 minutes (SMD 0.50, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.33, 5 RCTs, 545 women, I2 = 43%, low-quality evidence). This translates to a difference of up to 7 mm on a 0-10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) during the procedure and up to 13 mm within 30 minutes, which is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean pain scores after > 30 minutes (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07, 4 RCTs, 450 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), or in rates of vasovagal reactions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13, 8 RCTs, 1309 women, I2 = 66%, very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of non-pelvic pain (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 5.80, 1 RCT, 99 women, very low-quality evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in mean pain scores during the procedure (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.00, 3 RCTs, 521 women, I2 = 81%, low-quality evidence). Pain scores were lower in the NSAIDs group within 30 minutes (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.04, 2 RCTs, 340 women, I2=29%, low-quality evidence) and at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 2 RCTs, 321 women, I2 = 78%, low-quality evidence). This equates to maximum differences of under 7.5 mm on a 0-10 cm scale, which are unlikely to be clinically significant. One RCT (181 women) reported adverse events: there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in vasovagal reactions (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.94, very low-quality evidence). For other reported adverse events (non pelvic pain and allergic reactions) evidence was lacking. Opioids One RCT utilised sublingual buprenorphine and one utilised oral tramadol. Data on pain scores during the procedure were unsuitable for pooling due to inconsistency. Tramadol was associated with a benefit of up to 22 mm on a 0-10 cm scale (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 140 women). However, the effect estimate for this outcome for sublingual opioids did not support a benefit from the intervention (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.39, 164 women). Compared with placebo, the pain score within 30 minutes of the procedure was reduced in the tramadol group, with a difference of up to 17mm on a 0-10cm scale (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.23 , 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the tramadol and placebo groups at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.16, 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence). Nausea and vomiting occurred in 39% of the buprenorphine group, and in none of the placebo group (OR 107.55, 95% CI 6.44 to 1796.46) Analgesic versus any other analgesic Some comparisons did not report pain scores at all time frames of interest, and none reported data on adverse events. One RCT (84 women) compared local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were higher in the group with local intracervical anaesthesia during the procedure (SMD 4.27, 95% CI 3.49 to 5.06, very low-quality evidence), within 30 minutes (SMD 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.05, very low-quality evidence) and at more than 30 minutes (SMD 3.47, 95% CI 2.78 to 4.15, very low-quality evidence). This translates to a possible benefit in the combined group of up to 12 mm on a 0-10 cm scale during the procedure. Benefits at longer follow-up were smaller. One RCT compared antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were lower in the NSAID group than in the local anaesthesia group (during procedure: SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.90 to -0.91; >30 minutes after procedure: SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.41; 80 women, very low-quality evidence). This suggests a possible benefit of during the procedure of up to 23 mm on a 0-10 VAS scale and up to 11 mm >30 minutes after the procedure. Other comparisons included local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia, and opioid versus NSAIDs. Findings were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistent good-quality evidence of a clinically meaningful difference in safety or effectiveness between different types of pain relief compared with each other or with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy.

Diagnostic Office Vaginohysteroscopy in Evaluation of Infertility Prior to IVF: A Retrospective Analysis of 1000 Cases

AIM

The aim of this study was to analyze the utility of routine use of diagnostic office vaginohysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine cavity in infertility patients prior to IVF-ET.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1000 women who had undergone routine diagnostic office vaginohysteroscopy as an institutional protocol in the evaluation of infertility prior to IVF-ET cycle at a tertiary care hospital. They were divided into two groups: primary infertility (group I) and secondary infertility (group II). The primary outcome was the finding of an abnormal uterine cavity (congenital abnormality vs acquired abnormality).

RESULTS

One thousand women underwent routine diagnostic office vaginohysteroscopy in the evaluation of infertility prior to IVF-ET. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Vaginohysteroscopy revealed an abnormal uterine cavity in 13.8% (1000 patients) of women. Primary infertility group (I) had 13.19% (811 patients), and secondary infertility group (II) had 16.4% (189 patients) abnormal uterine cavities.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic office vaginohysteroscopy has a definite role in the uterine cavity evaluation in infertility patients prior to IVF, but routine use should not be recommended considering the low incidence of abnormal uterine cavity findings. Moreover, the majority of these uterine cavity abnormalities can be detected by less invasive tests such as HSG, TVS, SSG and 3D ultrasound.

Nutmeg oil alleviates chronic inflammatory pain through inhibition of COX-2 expression and substance P release in vivo

Background

Chronic pain, or sometimes referred to as persistent pain, reduces the life quality of patients who are suffering from chronic diseases such as inflammatory diseases, cancer and diabetes. Hence, herbal medicines draw many attentions and have been shown effective in the treatment or relief of pain.

Methods and Results

Here in this study, we used the CFA-injected rats as a sustainable pain model to test the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect of nutmeg oil, a spice flavor additive to beverages and baked goods produced from the seed of Myristica fragrans tree.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated that nutmeg oil could potentially alleviate the CFA-injection induced joint swelling, mechanical allodynia and heat hyperanalgesia of rats through inhibition of COX-2 expression and blood substance P level, which made it possible for nutmeg oil to be a potential chronic pain reliever.