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 For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.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
  • [41] The occasional intrauterine contraceptive device insertion
    Hutten-Czapski, Peter
    Goertzen, James
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF RURAL MEDICINE, 2008, 13 (01) : 31 - 35
  • [42] A comparison of the expected and actual pain experienced by women during insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device
    Brima, Nataliya
    Akintomide, Hannat
    Iguyovwe, Vivian
    Mann, Susan
    OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL OF CONTRACEPTION, 2015, 6 : 21 - 26
  • [43] Direct vs. standard method of insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device: insertion pain and outcomes at 6 months
    Bastin, Aurore
    Scanff, Alexandre
    Fraize, Stephane
    Hild, Jean-Christophe
    Le Lous, Maela
    Lavoue, Vincent
    Ruelle, Yannick
    Chaaban, Samah
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CONTRACEPTION AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, 2019, 24 (05): : 399 - 406
  • [44] PAIN CONTROL FOR INTRAUTERINE DEVICE INSERTION: A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF 1% LIDOCAINE PARACERVICAL BLOCK
    Krishnan, S.
    Kiley, J.
    Rademaker, A.
    Gawron, L.
    Stika, C.
    Hammond, C.
    CONTRACEPTION, 2011, 84 (03) : 319 - 319
  • [45] Naproxen Sodium for Pain Control With Intrauterine Device Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial Reply
    Ngo, Lynn L.
    Goldberg, Alisa B.
    Braaten, Kari P.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 129 (06): : 1136 - 1136
  • [46] Pain control for intrauterine device insertion: a randomized trial of 1% lidocaine paracervical block
    Mody, Sheila K.
    Kiley, Jessica
    Rademaker, Alfred
    Gawron, Lori
    Stika, Catherine
    Hammond, Cassing
    CONTRACEPTION, 2012, 86 (06) : 704 - 709
  • [47] Dual-responsive lidocaine in situ gel reduces pain of intrauterine device insertion
    Abd Ellah, Noura H.
    Abouelmagd, Sara A.
    Abbas, Ahmed M.
    Shaaban, Omar M.
    Hassanein, Khaled M. A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS, 2018, 538 (1-2) : 279 - 286
  • [48] Vaginal dinoprostone for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion: a meta-analysis
    Baradwan, S.
    Abu-Zaida, A.
    Alshahrani, M. S.
    Albezrah, N. A.
    Miski, N. T.
    Abuzaid, M.
    Aboudi, S. A.
    Baredwan, A.
    Almadhi, N.
    Baradwan, A.
    Alomar, O.
    Salem, H.
    Al-Badawi, I. A.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2021, 128 : 253 - 253
  • [49] Association of the Timing of Postpartum Intrauterine Device Insertion and Breastfeeding With Risks of Intrauterine Device Expulsion
    Armstrong, Mary Anne
    Raine-Bennett, Tina
    Reed, Susan D.
    Gatz, Jennifer
    Getahun, Darios
    Schoendorf, Juliane
    Postlethwaite, Debbie
    Fassett, Michael J.
    Peipert, Jeffrey F.
    Saltus, Catherine W.
    Merchant, Maqdooda
    Alabaster, Amy
    Zhou, Xiaolei
    Ichikawa, Laura
    Shi, Jiaxiao M.
    Chiu, Vicki Y.
    Xie, Fagen
    Hunter, Shannon
    Wang, Jinyi
    Ritchey, Mary E.
    Chillemi, Giulia
    Im, Theresa M.
    Takhar, Harpreet S.
    Pisa, Federica
    Asiimwe, Alex
    Anthony, Mary S.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2022, 5 (02)
  • [50] Intrauterine Device Insertion During Cesarean Delivery The Rising Tide of the Postdelivery Intrauterine Device
    Blumenthal, Paul D.
    Goldthwaite, Lisa M.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 126 (01): : 1 - 2