Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion

被引:60
|
作者
Lopez, Laureen M. [1 ]
Bernholc, Alissa [2 ]
Zeng, Yanwu [2 ]
Allen, Rebecca H. [3 ]
Bartz, Deborah [4 ]
O'Brien, Paul A. [5 ]
Hubacher, David [6 ]
机构
[1] FHI 360, Clin & Epidemiol Sci, Durham, NC 27001 USA
[2] FHI 360, Biostat, Durham, NC 27001 USA
[3] Women & Infants Hosp Rhode Isl, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Providence, RI USA
[4] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Biol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Cent London Community Healthcare, Contracept & Sexual Hlth, London, England
[6] FHI 360, Contracept Technol Innovat Dept, Durham, NC 27001 USA
关键词
Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Non-Steroidal [therapeutic use; Ibuprofen [therapeutic use; Intrauterine Devices [adverse effects; Misoprostol [therapeutic use; Naproxen [therapeutic use; Oxytocics [therapeutic use; Pain [drug therapy; prevention & control; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; SUBLINGUAL MISOPROSTOL PRIOR; 2-PERCENT LIDOCAINE GEL; IUD INSERTION; NULLIPAROUS WOMEN; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; PROPHYLACTIC IBUPROFEN; SYSTEM INSERTION; DOUBLE-BLIND; RELIEF; CONTRACEPTION;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD007373.pub3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 nonsteroidal 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 For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.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 IUCinsertion-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.
引用
收藏
页数:126
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A comparison of the insertion pain associated with three different types of intrauterine device
    Wiebe, Ellen R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2015, 129 (02) : 172 - 172
  • [22] Strategies to Mitigate Anxiety and Pain in Intrauterine Device Insertion: A Systematic Review
    Nguyen, Laura
    Lamarche, Larkin
    Lennox, Robin
    Ramdyal, Amanda
    Patel, Tejal
    Black, Morgan
    Mangin, Dee
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA, 2020, 42 (09) : 1138 - +
  • [23] The occasional intrauterine device insertion
    Rylance, Kristen
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF RURAL MEDICINE, 2016, 21 (01) : 20 - 25
  • [24] COMPARISON OF PAIN LEVEL DURING AND AFTER INTRAUTERINE DEVICE INSERTION: LEVONORGESTREL-RELEASING INTRAUTERINE SYSTEM VERSUS THE COPPER T INTRAUTERINE DEVICE
    Cirstoiu, Monica
    Munteanu, Octavian
    Antoniac, Iulian
    Cirstoiu, Catalin
    ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2016, 15 (05): : 965 - 972
  • [25] Naproxen Sodium for Pain Control With Intrauterine Device Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Creinin, Mitchell D.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 129 (06): : 1135 - 1136
  • [26] Which medication and when should it be administered for reducing pain in intrauterine device insertion?
    Blumenfeld, Zeev
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2020, 114 (04) : 760 - 761
  • [27] Predictors of Anticipated Pain During Intrauterine Device Insertion in Adolescents and Young Women
    Hunter, Tegan
    Sonalkar, Sarita
    Schreiber, Courtney A.
    Perriera, Lisa
    Sammel, Mary
    Akers, Aletha
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 133 : 142S - 142S
  • [28] Differing Approaches to Pain Management for Intrauterine Device Insertion and Maintenance: A Scoping Review
    Rahman, Mayisah
    King, Connor
    Saikaly, Rosie
    Sosa, Maria
    Sibaja, Kristel
    Tran, Brandon
    Tran, Simon
    Morello, Pamella
    Seo, Se Yeon
    Seo, Yi Yeon
    Jacobs, Robin J.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (03)
  • [29] A psychological factor associated with pain during intrauterine device insertion: emotional reactivity
    Akdemir, Y.
    Karadeniz, M.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 47 (03): : 335 - 340
  • [30] Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: Randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen
    Hubacher, David
    Reyes, Veronica
    Lillo, Sonia
    Zepeda, Ana
    Chen, Pai-Lien
    Croxatto, Horacio
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 195 (05) : 1272 - 1277