Castro T V B, Franceschini S A, Poli-Neto O, Ferriani R A, Silva de Sá M F, Vieira C S
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical School of Ribeirao Preto, University of São Paulo, Brazil, Avenida Bandeirantes, 3900 - Campus Universitário - Monte Alegre, CEP: 14049-900, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical School of Ribeirao Preto, University of São Paulo, Brazil, Avenida Bandeirantes, 3900 - Campus Universitário - Monte Alegre, CEP: 14049-900, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil National Institute of Hormones and Women's Health, CEP: 14049-900, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.
Hum Reprod. 2014 Nov;29(11):2439-45. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu233. Epub 2014 Sep 19.
Is the pain associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) insertion reduced by intracervical anesthesia in women without previous vaginal birth?
Intracervical anesthesia was not associated with reduced pain in women without previous vaginal birth.
The pain associated with the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives (IUCs) is a limiting factor for the use of these contraceptives by some women. No prophylactic pharmacological intervention has proven efficacy in relieving pain during or after the insertion of IUCs. However, previous studies included women with previous vaginal delivery, and injectable intracervical anesthesia was not evaluated in any of these studies.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a randomized, open, parallel-group clinical trial that evaluated 100 women without previous vaginal delivery who wished to use the LNG-IUS for the first time. These women were evaluated immediately after LNG-IUS insertion and then 2 h and 6 h later.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The 100 women were randomized into two groups: (i) use of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) (ibuprofen, 400 mg) 1 h prior to LNG-IUS insertion; or (ii) 2% lidocaine intracervical injection 5 min prior to LNG-IUS insertion. The women were evaluated immediately after LNG-IUS insertion and then 2 h and 6 h after insertion. Two pain scales were used (the visual analogue scale and the facial pain scale) in addition to assessing the ease of insertion (as rated by the provider) and the level of discomfort during the procedure (as rated by the patient). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the predictors associated with moderate/severe pain.
The pain and discomfort associated with LNG-IUS insertion, and the ease of insertion of the LNG-IUS did not differ between the groups. Nulliparity was more associated with moderate/severe pain [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 3.1 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-7.80]. Injectable intracervical anesthesia use reduced the risk of moderate/severe pain by 40% [adjusted OR: 0.6 (95% CI: 0.2-1.4)]. The difference between the mean pain score in the intracervical anesthesia group and the NSAID group was <10%; thus, the effect size of the intervention was not significant.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Intracervical anesthesia was compared with an oral medication in this study. Intracervical injection of a saline solution or even a dry needling as the placebo for a double-blind study could be a more adequate control; however, this approach was not a protocol approved by the institutional review board. Considering that the majority of the insertions were easy (>80% in both groups), the results may not be extrapolated to difficult insertions with moderate/severe pain where local anesthesia may have a role.
The findings can be generalized to most insertions in nulliparous women or in those without a previous vaginal delivery. There is currently no evidence to recommend the routine use of prophylactic intracervical anesthesia prior to LNG-IUS insertion; there is no evidence that this treatment reduces insertion-related pain.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: RAF and CSV give occasional lectures for Bayer Healthcare. This study received funding from the National Institute of Hormones and Women's Health, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).
NCT02155166.
对于既往无阴道分娩史的女性,宫颈内麻醉能否减轻左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统(LNG-IUS)放置时的疼痛?
对于既往无阴道分娩史的女性,宫颈内麻醉与疼痛减轻无关。
宫内节育器(IUC)放置时的疼痛是部分女性使用这些避孕方法的限制因素。尚无预防性药物干预措施被证实可有效缓解IUC放置期间或之后的疼痛。然而,既往研究纳入的是有阴道分娩史的女性,且这些研究均未评估注射用宫颈内麻醉。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:这是一项随机、开放、平行组临床试验,评估了100名既往无阴道分娩史且希望首次使用LNG-IUS的女性。这些女性在LNG-IUS放置后立即接受评估,随后在2小时和6小时后再次评估。
参与者/材料、地点、方法:100名女性被随机分为两组:(i)在LNG-IUS放置前1小时使用非甾体抗炎药(NSAID)(布洛芬,400毫克);或(ii)在LNG-IUS放置前5分钟进行2%利多卡因宫颈内注射。女性在LNG-IUS放置后立即接受评估,随后在放置后2小时和6小时进行评估。除了评估放置的难易程度(由操作者评分)和操作过程中的不适程度(由患者评分)外,还使用了两种疼痛量表(视觉模拟量表和面部疼痛量表)。进行多变量逻辑回归分析以分析与中度/重度疼痛相关的预测因素。
两组之间与LNG-IUS放置相关的疼痛和不适以及LNG-IUS的放置难易程度并无差异。未生育与中度/重度疼痛的相关性更强[调整后的优势比(OR):3.1(95%置信区间(CI):1.3 - 7.80)]。注射用宫颈内麻醉使中度/重度疼痛的风险降低了40%[调整后的OR:0.6(95%CI:0.2 - 1.4)]。宫颈内麻醉组和NSAID组的平均疼痛评分差异<10%;因此,干预的效应量不显著。
局限性、谨慎理由:本研究将宫颈内麻醉与口服药物进行了比较。在双盲研究中,宫颈内注射生理盐水甚至干针穿刺作为安慰剂可能是更合适的对照;然而,这种方法未被机构审查委员会批准的方案所采用。考虑到大多数放置操作都很容易(两组中均>80%),研究结果可能无法外推至伴有中度/重度疼痛的困难放置情况,而在这种情况下局部麻醉可能会发挥作用。
研究结果可推广至大多数未生育女性或既往无阴道分娩史女性的放置操作。目前没有证据推荐在LNG-IUS放置前常规使用预防性宫颈内麻醉;没有证据表明这种治疗可减轻与放置相关的疼痛。
研究资金/利益冲突:RAF和CSV偶尔为拜耳医疗保健公司授课。本研究获得了国家激素与妇女健康研究所、国家科学技术发展委员会(CNPq)的资助。
NCT02155166。