Is music intervention effective in reducing anxiety and pain during breast biopsy procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about the effect of music intervention in reducing patients' anxiety during breast biopsy. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched using the relevant MeSH terms. The inclusion criteria were all RCTs assessing the effect of music therapy versus no music in reducing anxiety during breast biopsy. The extracted outcomes were anxiety and pain during breast biopsy. They were pooled as mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) in a fixed-effects model, using Review Manager 5.3 software for windows. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 1.0). Then, the outcomes of our meta-analyses were independently evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to know the grade of their evidence. RESULTS: The final analysis included five RCTs. We found a positive effect of music therapy in reducing anxiety levels compared with control group (MD = - 2.11; 95% CI (- 4.16 to - 0.06); p = 0.04). No difference between music and control groups regarding pain associated with breast biopsy (MD = 0.22; 95% CI (- 0.81 to 1.25); p = 0.68). The GRADE rating of our outcomes was low for anxiety levels and very low for pain during the biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Music therapy could be an effective, simple, non-pharmacological option in relieving anxiety during breast biopsy; however, it had no effect on procedure-associated pain. More large and high-quality studies are needed to confirm our results.

Comparative efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine cream and vaginal misoprostol in reducing pain during levonorgestrel intrauterine device insertion in women delivered only by cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine (LP) cream versus misoprostol versus placebo before levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) insertion. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital from April 30, 2020 to March 1, 2021 on 210 parous women willing to receive LNG-IUD and delivered only by elective cesarean delivery (CD). Participants received 200 µg vaginal misoprostol or 5 ml of LP cream 5% or placebo 3 h before LNG-IUS insertion. Primary outcome was pain during LNG-IUD insertion, while secondary outcomes were pain 10 min post-procedure, ease of insertion, patient satisfaction, insertion time, and drug side effects. RESULTS: Pain during LNG-IUS insertion was reduced in LP group and misoprostol group compared to placebo group (2.1 ± 1.0 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001) and (2.3 ± 1.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p <0.001), respectively. Ease of procedure and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in LP and misoprostol groups than placebo (P <0.001). Need for additional analgesia was significantly higher in placebo group than in the other two groups (P = 0.009). Adverse events were not significantly different between the three groups except vomiting and abdominal cramps, which were higher with misoprostol. CONCLUSION: LP cream and 200 µg of vaginal misoprostol administration before LNG-IUD insertion in women delivered only by elective CD effectively reduced pain during insertion and 10 min post-procedure with easier insertions, high patient satisfaction, and tolerable side effects. Pain reduction with LP cream was clinically significant.

Determining the Optimal Time Interval between Vaginal Dinoprostone Administration and Diagnostic Office Hysteroscopy in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized, Double-blind Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal timing of vaginal dinoprostone administration before office hysteroscopy (OH) in nulliparous women. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 180 nulliparous women undergoing diagnostic OH. INTERVENTIONS: We randomly allocated the women to long-interval or short-interval dinoprostone groups: three mg dinoprostone was administered vaginally 12 hours before OH in the long-interval group and 3 hours before OH in the short-interval group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was pain during OH measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 = no pain; 100 = worst pain imaginable). The secondary outcomes were ease of hysteroscope passage, patient satisfaction score, and drug-related adverse effects. The patients in the long-interval dinoprostone group had lower pain scores during OH (p <.001). Contrarily, pain scores 30 minutes after the procedure were similar in both groups (p = .1). The patient satisfaction score was higher and clinicians found hysteroscope passage through the cervical canal easier and quicker in the long-interval dinoprostone group than in the short-interval group (p <.001, p = .003, and p <.001, respectively). Side effects were comparable in both study groups. CONCLUSION: Vaginal dinoprostone administered 12 hours before OH was more effective than that administered 3 hours before OH in reducing pain during OH in nulliparous women, with easier hysteroscope insertion, shorter procedure duration, and higher patient satisfaction score.

The effectiveness of the abdominal binder in relieving pain after cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal binder is a non-pharmacological method of relieving pain after surgical procedures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the abdominal binder in relieving pain and distress scores after cesarean delivery (CD). SEARCH STRATEGY: The following terms were searched: cesarean section, cesarean, caesarean, abdominal deliveries, C-section, abdominal delivery, abdominal binding, binder, and abdominal binder. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with patients undergoing CD receiving an abdominal binder compared with non-users of the abdominal binder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five electronic databases were searched until November 2019. Records were screened for eligibility. Data were extracted independently and analyzed. The main outcomes were pain and distress scores. RESULTS: The final analysis included six RCTs. Overall effect estimate favored the abdominal binder group over the control group in the following outcomes: VAS pain scores after 24 h (mean difference [MD] -1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.14 to -0.39; P = 0.01), VAS scores after 48 h (MD -1.21; 95% CI -1.51 to -0.90; P < 0.001), distress score after 24 h (MD -1.87; 95% CI -3.01 to -0.73; P = 0.001), and distress score after 48 h (MD -1.87; 95% CI -3.07 to -0.67; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The abdominal binder could be an effective, simple, non-pharmacological option of relieving pain and distress after CD.

Evaluating efficacy of intravenous carbetocin in reducing blood loss during abdominal myomectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of carbetocin versus placebo in decreasing intraoperative blood loss and the need for blood transfusion during abdominal myomectomy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary university hospital from September 2019 to February 2020. PATIENT(S): A total of 138 women with symptomatic leiomyoma who were candidates for abdominal myomectomy (n = 69 in each group). INTERVENTION(S): We randomized the study participants in a 1:1 ratio to carbetocin and placebo groups. Intravenous 100 µg carbetocin or placebo was administered slowly after induction of anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Intraoperative blood loss, need for blood transfusion, postoperative hemoglobin, operative time, length of hospitalization, and drug side-effects. RESULT(S): The baseline characteristics were similar among all groups. Carbetocin had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss compared with placebo (mean difference 184 mL). Hemoglobin level 24 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the placebo group than in the carbetocin group (9.1 ± 0.8 vs. 10.3 ± 0.6 g/dL). Eight women in the carbetocin group needed blood transfusion compared with 17 in placebo group. Operative time, length of hospitalization, and side-effects were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION(S): A single preoperative intravenous dose of 100 µg carbetocin is a simple, practical, and effective method of decreasing intraoperative blood loss and the need for blood transfusion during abdominal myomectomy, with tolerable, few, nonsignificant side-effects. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04083625.

Oral tramadol versus oral celecoxib for analgesia after mediolateral episiotomy repair in obese primigravidae: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A variety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been investigated, with the goal of relieving pain after post-episiotomy repair. We aimed to compare the efficacy of tramadol versus celecoxib orally in reducing pain after mediolateral episiotomy repair in obese primigravidae undergoing spontaneous vaginal delivery. METHODS: We conducted a randomized double-blinded trial in Cairo University hospital, Cairo, Egypt, from October 2018 to December 2019. We randomly assigned 200 women into two groups: group A (n = 100) received one tramadol tablet 100 mg orally whereas group B (n = 100) received one celecoxib tablet 200 mg orally. Our primary outcome was pain score using a 10-cm visual analog scale at different time intervals. Our secondary outcomes were the overall satisfaction score and drug side effects. RESULTS: After mediolateral episiotomy repair, the pain scores at 1, 2, and 4 h were significantly lower in the tramadol group than in the celecoxib group (p < 0.001). However, there were no significantly differences in pain scores at 8 and 12 h between the two groups (p = 0.50 and 0.48 respectively). Women's satisfaction score was significantly higher in the tramadol group than in the celecoxib group (p < 0.001). Fewer participants in the tramadol group needed additional analgesics than in the celecoxib group; however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.17). Drug adverse effects were comparable in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Primigravid women who received tramadol 100 mg orally after mediolateral episiotomy repair had lower pain scores and were more satisfied than women who received celecoxib 200 mg orally. Both drugs were well tolerated, with few side effects.