Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
OtherPractice

Effective analgesic options for intrauterine device placement pain

Karena Whitworth, Jon Neher and Sarah Safranek
Canadian Family Physician August 2020, 66 (8) 580-581;
Karena Whitworth
Family physician at Family Health Associates in Bellingham, Wash.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jon Neher
Associate Director of Curriculum Development at Valley Family Medicine in Renton, Wash.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jon_neher@valleymed.org
Sarah Safranek
Information Management Librarian at the University of Washington in Seattle.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Clinical Inquiries question

What analgesic options are most effective for pain related to intrauterine device (IUD) placement?

Evidence-based answer

Lidocaine-prilocaine cream (LPC; 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine) reduces the pain of tenaculum placement by 24% and IUD insertion by 28% (strength of recommendation [SOR] A: consistent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Giving 600 µg of vaginal misoprostol 6 hours before insertion and applying 4% viscous lidocaine solution to the cervix within 5 minutes of IUD placement might reduce pain, but by less than 20% (SOR B: RCTs). Pretreatment with 2% topical lidocaine gels, 400 µg of misoprostol, or ibuprofen is not effective in reducing pain (SOR A: meta-analyses of RCTs). Buffered lidocaine paracervical blocks might also be helpful to reduce overall pain (SOR C: conflicting meta-analyses and an RCT).

Evidence summary

Effective—LPC.

A 2019 systematic review and network meta-analysis included 38 RCTs of pain management interventions for women undergoing IUD placement (N = 6314).1 Interventions included LPC, mucosal lidocaine, misoprostol, naproxen, and paracervical block. Lidocaine-prilocaine cream was more effective for pain relief than all other interventions; compared with placebo, LPC reduced pain of tenaculum placement by 24% and pain from IUD insertion by 28% (Table 1).1–5 Lidocaine-prilocaine cream had no effect on postprocedural pain. The meta-analysis concluded that no other intervention was effective; however, the analysis combined all data for doses and routes of lidocaine and misoprostol, possibly masking other effective protocols using these agents. This conclusion for the effectiveness of LPC matched the findings of a standard 2018 meta-analysis of 2 RCTs with 216 participants.2 Both meta-analyses incorporated the same 2 LPC trials.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Analgesic options for pain reduction from IUD insertion in recent meta-analyses or individual RCTs with more than 100 participants

Possibly effective—600 µg of misoprostol, 4% lidocaine gel.

Two relatively large RCTs (each with more than 100 participants and both were included in the 2019 network meta-analysis1) identified analgesic options that might be helpful. The first RCT (N = 120) compared 600 µg of misoprostol to placebo, both given vaginally 6 hours before IUD insertion.3 All participants in this study had previous cesarean sections. Misoprostol reduced pain from insertion by about 8% (Table 1).1–5 The second RCT (N = 218) compared a 4% topical viscous lidocaine solution (ie, 4% lidocaine gel) to placebo in nulliparous women.4 The lidocaine solution was placed on the cervix within 5 minutes of IUD insertion. The lidocaine solution decreased postprocedural pain at 10 minutes by about 16% (Table 1).1–5

Not effective—400 µg of misoprostol, 2% topical lidocaine gel, ibuprofen.

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated interventions for pain with IUD placement with more granularity than the other meta-analyses described above.5 It identified 4 RCTs (N = 400) where participants were pretreated with 400 µg of misoprostol or placebo that used various routes and timing. The 400-µg misoprostol dose produced a small but statistically significant increase in pain with IUD insertion (Table 1).1–5 Additionally, meta-analysis of 2% topical lidocaine gel found no effect on pain due to tenaculum placement (2 RCTs; N = 345) or IUD insertion (3 RCTs; N = 409). This review also identified 4 RCTs (N = 2018) that compared oral ibuprofen in doses ranging from 400 mg to 800 mg with placebo; the interventions were administered within a range of 30 minutes to 4 hours before the procedure. Individually, none of the studies showed a benefit for ibuprofen therapy; however, a meta-analysis was not performed.

Paracervical blocks.

In the 2019 and 2018 systematic reviews, paracervical blocks using 1% or 2% lidocaine did not result in statistically significant reductions in pain during any stage of IUD insertion.1,2 However, a recent RCT (N = 64) investigated use of a 1% lidocaine paracervical block buffered with sodium bicarbonate.6 Participants reported 22% more pain with block administration compared with placebo (P = .003), and there was no significant difference in pain between the 2 arms with the placement of the tenaculum (P = .268). Moreover, participants in the intervention group (n = 33) reported 17% less pain with uterine sounding (P = .005), 21% less pain with IUD placement (P = .002), 15% less pain 5 minutes after the procedure (P = .005), and 21% less overall pain (P = .015).

Notes

Clinical Inquiries are author-formulated questions that are answered with the best available current evidence, written by family medicine residency faculty and their residents through the Family Physician Inquiries Network.

The strength of recommendations and the level of evidence for individual studies are rated using criteria developed by the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (www.cebm.net). The Family Physicians Inquiries Network Clinical Inquiries series in Canadian Family Physician is coordinated by Rick Guthmann, MD, MPH, Editor-in-Chief for the series. If interested in submitting questions or writing answers for this series, go to www.fpin.org or e-mail ci{at}fpin.org. ©Family Physicians Inquiries Network. Used with permission.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Samy A,
    2. Abbas AM,
    3. Mahmoud M,
    4. Taher A,
    5. Awad MH,
    6. Husseiny TE,
    7. et al
    . Evaluating different pain lowering medications during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2019;111(3):553-61.e4. Epub 2019 Jan 2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Perez-Lopez FR,
    2. Martinez-Dominguez SJ,
    3. Perez-Roncero GR,
    4. Hernandez AV
    . Uterine or paracervical lidocaine application for pain control during intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2018;23(3):207-17. Epub 2018 May 24.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Maged AM,
    2. Youssef G,
    3. Eldaly A,
    4. Omran E,
    5. Naggar ME,
    6. Hak AA,
    7. et al
    . Benefits of vaginal misoprostol prior to IUD insertion in women with previous caesarean delivery: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2018;23(1):32-7. Epub 2018 Feb 2.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Tornblom-Paulander S,
    2. Tingåker BK,
    3. Werner A,
    4. Liliecreutz C,
    5. Conner P,
    6. Wessel H,
    7. et al
    . Novel topical formulation of lidocaine provides significant pain relief for intrauterine device insertion: pharmacokinetic evaluation and randomized placebo-controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2015;103(2):422-7. Epub 2014 Nov 20.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lopez LM,
    2. Bernholc A,
    3. Zeng Y,
    4. Allen RH,
    5. Bartz D,
    6. O’Brien PA,
    7. et al
    . Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(7):CD007373.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mody SK,
    2. Farala JP,
    3. Jimenez B,
    4. Nishikawa M,
    5. Ngo LL
    . Paracervical block for intrauterine device placement among nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132(3):575-82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 66 (8)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 66, Issue 8
1 Aug 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effective analgesic options for intrauterine device placement pain
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effective analgesic options for intrauterine device placement pain
Karena Whitworth, Jon Neher, Sarah Safranek
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2020, 66 (8) 580-581;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Effective analgesic options for intrauterine device placement pain
Karena Whitworth, Jon Neher, Sarah Safranek
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2020, 66 (8) 580-581;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Clinical Inquiries question
    • Evidence-based answer
    • Evidence summary
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Practice

  • Is 45 the new 50 in colorectal cancer screening?
  • Approach to diagnosis and management of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
  • Determining if and how older patients can safely stay at home with additional services
Show more Practice

FPIN’S Clinical Inquiries

  • Testosterone replacement and improved memory
  • Association of first-line antidepressants and incident adverse metabolic effects
  • Platelet-rich plasma injection for rotator cuff disease
Show more FPIN’S Clinical Inquiries

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2021 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire