Effect of intracervical block on self-reported intrauterine device insertion pain: a single-center prospective survey study.

Q3 Medicine Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings Pub Date : 2024-12-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/08998280.2024.2440285
Micah Clay, Joyce Ku, Krystal N Fett, Michael P Hofkamp, Joanna K Stacey
{"title":"Effect of intracervical block on self-reported intrauterine device insertion pain: a single-center prospective survey study.","authors":"Micah Clay, Joyce Ku, Krystal N Fett, Michael P Hofkamp, Joanna K Stacey","doi":"10.1080/08998280.2024.2440285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aimed to determine the incidence of self-reported pain during office-based intrauterine device (IUD) placement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included patients who had IUD placement at our clinic from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024 with no prior history of vaginal delivery, who were between the ages of 14 and 48 years, did not have cervicitis, and were not pregnant. Informed consent was obtained, a prequestionnaire was completed, the IUD was placed in accordance with clinician preference, and a postquestionnaire was administered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-seven patients answered the question about expected pain. Two (5%) reported that their pain during IUD placement was none, 22 (59%) reported that pain was better than expected, 10 (27%) reported that pain was just as bad as expected, two (5%) reported pain was worse than expected, and one (3%) indicated that their pain during IUD placement was much worse than expected. Thirty-three patients received an intracervical or paracervical block, and five patients did not receive an intracervical or paracervical block; these groups reported visual analog pain scores of 35 ± 25 mm and 58 ± 14 mm, respectively (<i>P</i> = 0.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Approximately 8% of patients in our study reported worse or much worse than expected pain with IUD placement. Patients who received an intracervical or paracervical block reported less pain, but this difference was not statistically significant. Paracervical or intracervical blocks can decrease perceived pain with IUD insertion, increasing contraceptive options for those who are concerned about painful insertions; however larger studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8828,"journal":{"name":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","volume":"38 2","pages":"155-158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11844926/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2024.2440285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to determine the incidence of self-reported pain during office-based intrauterine device (IUD) placement.

Methods: The study included patients who had IUD placement at our clinic from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024 with no prior history of vaginal delivery, who were between the ages of 14 and 48 years, did not have cervicitis, and were not pregnant. Informed consent was obtained, a prequestionnaire was completed, the IUD was placed in accordance with clinician preference, and a postquestionnaire was administered.

Results: Thirty-seven patients answered the question about expected pain. Two (5%) reported that their pain during IUD placement was none, 22 (59%) reported that pain was better than expected, 10 (27%) reported that pain was just as bad as expected, two (5%) reported pain was worse than expected, and one (3%) indicated that their pain during IUD placement was much worse than expected. Thirty-three patients received an intracervical or paracervical block, and five patients did not receive an intracervical or paracervical block; these groups reported visual analog pain scores of 35 ± 25 mm and 58 ± 14 mm, respectively (P = 0.22).

Conclusion: Approximately 8% of patients in our study reported worse or much worse than expected pain with IUD placement. Patients who received an intracervical or paracervical block reported less pain, but this difference was not statistically significant. Paracervical or intracervical blocks can decrease perceived pain with IUD insertion, increasing contraceptive options for those who are concerned about painful insertions; however larger studies are needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宫颈内阻滞对自述宫内节育器插入疼痛的影响:一项单中心前瞻性调查研究。
目的:本研究旨在确定在办公室放置宫内节育器(IUD)时自我报告疼痛的发生率。方法:本研究纳入于2023年4月1日至2024年3月31日在我诊所放置宫内节育器的患者,既往无阴道分娩史,年龄14 ~ 48岁,无宫颈炎,未怀孕。获得知情同意,完成问卷前调查,按照临床医生的喜好放置宫内节育器,并进行问卷后调查。结果:37例患者回答了预期疼痛问题。2例(5%)报告他们在放置宫内节育器期间没有疼痛,22例(59%)报告疼痛比预期好,10例(27%)报告疼痛与预期一样严重,2例(5%)报告疼痛比预期更严重,1例(3%)表示他们在放置宫内节育器期间的疼痛比预期严重得多。33例患者接受了宫颈内或宫颈旁阻滞,5例患者未接受宫颈内或宫颈旁阻滞;两组视觉模拟疼痛评分分别为35±25 mm和58±14 mm (P = 0.22)。结论:在我们的研究中,大约8%的患者报告宫内节育器放置后的疼痛比预期的更严重或更严重。接受宫颈内或宫颈旁阻滞的患者报告疼痛减轻,但这种差异没有统计学意义。宫颈旁或宫颈内阻滞可以减少插入宫内节育器时的疼痛感,为担心插入疼痛的人增加避孕选择;然而,还需要更大规模的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
245
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the usefulness of ChatGPT and Gemini in generating educational content for patients with vitiligo: a comparative cross-sectional study. Structural approaches to cardiogenic shock: opening doors to granular profiling. The enigma of leiomyosacoma of the prostate: insight into diagnosis, pathophysiology, prognosis, and treatment. Beyond the scale: American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status may matter more than body mass index in predicting laparoscopic hysterectomy operative time. Factors influencing American Board of Internal Medicine examination pass rates in US residency programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1