No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUNDMost intrauterine contraception (IUC) placements do not require pain relief. However, small proportions of nulliparous (∼17%) and parous (∼11%) women experience substantial pain that needs to be proactively managed. This review critically evaluates the evidence for pain management strategies, formulates evidence-based recommendations and identifies data gaps and areas for further research.METHODSA PubMed literature search was undertaken. Relevant articles on management of pain associated with IUC insertion, published in English between 1980 and November 2012, were identified using the following search terms: ‘intrauterine contraception’, ‘insertion’ and ‘pain’. RCTs were included; further relevant articles were also identified and included as appropriate.RESULTSSeventeen studies were identified and included: 12 RCTs and one non-randomized study of pre-insertion oral analgesia, cervical priming and local anaesthesia; one systematic review and one RCT on post-insertion analgesia and two non-randomized studies on non-pharmacological interventions. There was no conclusive evidence that any prophylactic pharmacological intervention reduces pain associated with IUC insertion. However, most of the regimens studied were adopted from hysteroscopy or abortion and effectiveness in specific subsets of women has not been studied adequately. A systematic review found non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAID) to be effective in reactively treating post-insertion pain, but no benefit was found with prophylactic use.CONCLUSIONSNo prophylactic pharmacological intervention has been adequately evaluated to support routine use for pain reduction during or after IUC insertion. Women's anxiety about the procedure may contribute to higher levels of perceived pain, which highlights the importance of counselling, and creating a trustworthy, unhurried and professional atmosphere in which the experience of the provider also has a major role; a situation frequently referred to as ‘verbal anaesthesia’.

Background The optimal dose of misoprostol for the induction of labour remains uncertain.Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol tablets for the induction of labour and cervical ripening.Search strategy We performed electronic and manual searches to identify relevant randomised trials.Selection criteria The efficacy outcomes assessed were rates of vaginal delivery within 24 hours, delivery within one dose, and oxytocin augmentation, and interval to delivery. The safety outcomes assessed were incidences of tachysystole, hyperstimulation, caesarean delivery, cesarean delivery for non-reassuring fetal heart rate (FHR), operative vaginal delivery, abnormal 5-minute Apgar score, abnormal cord gas values, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and meconium passage.Data collection and analysis Thirteen studies (1945 women) were included. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed-effects and random-effects models.Main results We found that 25 micrograms was less efficacious, with lower rates of delivery after one dose (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39-0.88) and vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.96), and with increased rates of oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.36-1.75). We noted an improved safety profile with 25 micrograms, however, with decreased rates of tachysystole (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.35-0.61), hyperstimulation (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.31-0.78), caesarean deliveries for non-reassuring FHR (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.52-0.87), NICU admissions (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.4-0.98), and meconium passage (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.45-0.96).Conclusions Although 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol may be more efficacious, safety concerns make the 25-microgram dose preferable.Keywords Cervical ripening, induction of labour, misoprostol.