Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Nov;207(5):384.e1-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.09.018. Epub 2012 Sep 20.

Cervical lidocaine for IUD insertional pain: a randomized controlled trial

Colleen P McNicholas  1 , Tessa Madden, Qiuhong Zhao, Gina Secura, Jenifer E Allsworth, Jeffrey F Peipert
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cervical lidocaine for IUD insertional pain: a randomized controlled trial

Colleen P McNicholas et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: Anticipated pain with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion may be a barrier to widespread use. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of intracervical 2% lidocaine gel for pain relief with IUD insertion.

Study design: We performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of women undergoing IUD insertion. Participants were randomly assigned to 2% lidocaine or placebo gel. Study gel (3 mL) was placed 3 minutes prior to IUD insertion. Pain scores were measured at various time points using a 10-point visual analog scale.

Results: Of the 200 participants randomized, 199 completed the study. Pain scores among lidocaine and placebo arms were similar at tenaculum placement (lidocaine and placebo: median, 4; range, 0-10; P = .15) and with insertion (lidocaine: median, 5; range, 1-10; placebo: median, 6; range, 0-10; P = .16). These results did not differ by parity.

Conclusion: Topical or intracervical 2% lidocaine gel prior to IUD insertion does not decrease pain scores.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: None of the above authors have a conflict of interest

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2006 Jun;38(2):90–96. - PubMed
    1. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;117(5):1105–1113. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Suhonen S, Haukkamaa M, Jakobsson T, Rauramo I. Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: a comparative study. Contraception. 2004 May;69(5):407–412. - PubMed
    1. Kulier R, O'Brien PA, Helmerhorst FM, Usher-Patel M, D'Arcangues C. Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4) CD005347. - PubMed
    1. O'Brien PA, Kulier R, Helmerhorst FM, Usher-Patel M, d'Arcangues C. Copper-containing, framed intrauterine devices for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 2008 May;77(5):318–327. - PubMed

Publication types