Literature DB >> 26222246

Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion.

Laureen M Lopez1, Alissa Bernholc, Yanwu Zeng, Rebecca H Allen, Deborah Bartz, Paul A O'Brien, David Hubacher.   

Abstract

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 For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26222246      PMCID: PMC9580985          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007373.pub3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  59 in total

1.  GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Authors:  Gordon Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Elie A Akl; Regina Kunz; Gunn Vist; Jan Brozek; Susan Norris; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Paul Glasziou; Hans DeBeer; Roman Jaeschke; David Rind; Joerg Meerpohl; Philipp Dahm; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Higher dose cervical 2% lidocaine gel for IUD insertion: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rebecca H Allen; Christina Raker; Vinita Goyal
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Does a full bladder assist insertion of intrauterine contraception? A randomised trial.

Authors:  Sharon T Cameron; Anna Glasier; Amy Cooper; Anne Johnstone
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2013-01-24

4.  A comparison of the actual and expected pain response following insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device.

Authors:  N D Goldstuck; M L Matthews
Journal:  Clin Reprod Fertil       Date:  1985-03

5.  The effects of psychological preparation on pain at intrauterine device insertion.

Authors:  J R Newton; A E Reading
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 3.375

6.  Inhaled lavender effect on anxiety and pain caused from intrauterine device insertion.

Authors:  Mahnaz Shahnazi; Roya Nikjoo; Parisa Yavarikia; Sakineh Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi
Journal:  J Caring Sci       Date:  2012-11-28

7.  Ibuprofen prophylaxis for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Julie Chor; Julia Bregand-White; Alex Golobof; Bryna Harwood; Allison Cowett
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen.

Authors:  David Hubacher; Veronica Reyes; Sonia Lillo; Ana Zepeda; Pai-Lien Chen; Horacio Croxatto
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Accuracy of providers' assessment of pain during intrauterine device insertion.

Authors:  Karla Maguire; Kathleen Morrell; Carolyn Westhoff; Anne Davis
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 10.  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy bleeding or pain associated with intrauterine-device use.

Authors:  D A Grimes; D Hubacher; L M Lopez; K F Schulz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18
View more
  14 in total

1.  Adherence to Recommended Practices for Provision of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Among Providers in a Large U.S. Health Care System.

Authors:  Colleen P Judge-Golden; Harold C Wiesenfeld; Beatrice A Chen; Sonya Borrero
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Anticipated Pain During Intrauterine Device Insertion.

Authors:  Tegan A Hunter; Sarita Sonalkar; Courtney A Schreiber; Lisa K Perriera; Mary D Sammel; Aletha Y Akers
Journal:  J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 1.814

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

Authors:  Sheila K Mody; John Paul Farala; Berenice Jimenez; Moena Nishikawa; Lynn L Ngo
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Effective analgesic options for intrauterine device placement pain.

Authors:  Karena Whitworth; Jon Neher; Sarah Safranek
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 5.  Eliminating health disparities in unintended pregnancy with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC).

Authors:  Caitlin Parks; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 6.  Interventions to prevent or treat heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with intrauterine-device use.

Authors:  Karen Christelle; Mohd N Norhayati; Sharifah Halimah Jaafar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-08-26

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

Authors:  Aletha Y Akers; Jennifer Harding; Lisa K Perriera; Courtney Schreiber; J Felipe Garcia-Espana; Sarita Sonalkar
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 8.  Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems for long-acting contraception: current perspectives, safety, and patient counseling.

Authors:  Dustin J Costescu
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2016-10-13

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

Authors:  Shana M Miles; Katerina Shvartsman; Susan Dunlow
Journal:  Contracept Reprod Med       Date:  2019-09-10

Review 10.  New developments in intrauterine device use: focus on the US.

Authors:  Anita L Nelson; Natasha Massoudi
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2016-09-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.