No pain relief by virtual reality during hysterosalpingography (HSG): results from a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16-01-2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021.

Mepivacaine instillation for pain reduction during intrauterine device placement in nulliparous women: a double-blinded randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain associated with intrauterine device (IUD) placement has been identified as a significant barrier to the adoption of long-acting reversible contraception, contributing to lower utilization of the most effective reversible contraceptive methods. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether instillation of intrauterine mepivacaine before IUD placement alleviates pain more effectively than a placebo. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving nulliparous women undergoing IUD placement. An intrauterine instillation of 10 mL of 20 mg/mL mepivacaine or 0.9 mg/mL sodium chloride was administrated through a hydrosonography catheter 2 minutes prior to IUD placement. Pain scores were assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) at prespecified time points. Primary outcome measured the difference in VAS pain scores between the intervention group and the placebo group during IUD placement. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain scores at instillation and 10 minutes after placement, tolerability of the placement pain, as well as acceptability of the analgesia method. RESULTS: We enrolled 151 participants, with 76 assigned to the mepivacaine group and 75 to the placebo group. The mean VAS pain score during IUD placement showed a difference of 13.3 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.75-20.87; P<.001): the mepivacaine group had a mean of 53.9 mm (standard deviation [SD] 22.8), while the placebo group had a mean of 67.2 mm (SD 22.4). After adjusting for each individual provider's impact, the difference in mean pain scores remained statistically significant (12.2 mm 95% CI 4.85-19.62; P<.001). A greater proportion of women in the intervention group reported tolerable pain during placement with 70/75 participants (93.3%) compared to 53/66 participants (80.3%) in the placebo group (P=.021). CONCLUSION: The intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine results in statistically significant reduction in pain score among nulliparous women during IUD placement. Although the precise clinical impact of this pain reduction method remains uncertain, the observed reduction in pain score result in a higher proportion of women reporting tolerable pain. This finding and the high acceptance as a pain reduction method thereby suggests clinical relevance. Intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine is a possible strategy to increase IUD utilization, particularly among nulliparous women who are at high risk of unintended pregnancy.

Virtual Reality for the Management of Pain and Anxiety for IR Procedures: A Prospective, Randomized, Pilot Study on Digital Sedation.

PURPOSE: To assess the analgesic and anxiolytic effects of virtual reality (VR) augmentation in patients undergoing peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement or fine-needle aspiration thyroid biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, single-center randomized controlled trial with 107 patients enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard of care (SOC) or SOC+VR during PICC or thyroid biopsy procedures. Pain and anxiety were individually measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) before and after the procedure. Vital signs including heart rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were recorded. One-way analysis of variance test and Games-Howell post hoc analysis were used to assess effect size and statistical significance between SOC and SOC+VR measures. RESULTS: The PICC cohort consisted of 59 patients (33 in SOC+VR and 26 in SOC), with a median age of 53.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 38.3-62.7 years). The thyroid biopsy cohort consisted of 48 patients (26 in SOC+VR and 22 in SOC), with a median age of 60.1 years (IQR, 49.0-67.2 years). One-way analysis of individuals undergoing thyroid biopsies with adjunctive VR revealed an effect size of -1.74 points (SE ± 0.71; P = .018) on VAS pain scale when compared with SOC. Analysis of individuals undergoing PICC placements revealed an effect size of -1.60 points (SE ± 0.81; P = .053) on VAS anxiety when compared with SOC. CONCLUSIONS: VR as a nonpharmacologic adjunct reduced some procedure-related pain and anxiety without increasing the procedural duration.

Strategies to minimize procedure-related pain and anxiety: lessons from pediatric dermatology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent studies have suggested that prolonged or repeated episodes of general anesthesia early in childhood may adversely affect neurodevelopment. This, combined with rising healthcare costs and decreasing access, has sparked interest in performing pediatric procedures in the office setting when possible. It is essential to address the physical and psychological discomfort that often accompany this experience, particularly in children. RECENT FINDINGS: Healthcare providers performing procedures on children can draw from a spectrum of established techniques, new technology, and novel use of medications to decrease peri-procedural pain and anxiety. These techniques include distraction, optimization of local anesthesia, and mild to moderate sedation. SUMMARY: We recommend using a combination of techniques to minimize pain and anxiety to improve safety, decrease healthcare costs, improve patient experience, and prevent childhood trauma and persistent negative perception of the healthcare system.

Unsedated colonoscopy utilizing virtual reality distraction: a pilot-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation increases colonoscopy risks and prolongs recovery time. We examined whether virtual reality (VR) can substitute for sedation. The primary outcome was the overall satisfaction of patients who underwent colonoscopy with VR headset compared with patients who underwent standard sedation. Pain during the procedure, polyp detection rate (PDR), colonoscopy duration, post-colonoscopy adverse events, post-colonoscopy recovery, time-to-return to daily functions, and turnaround time at the endoscopy unit were secondary outcomes. METHODS: The study was approved by Sheba Medical Center's ethics committee IRB number 21-8177-SMC. Sixty patients were sequentially enrolled in a 1:1 ratio to either standard sedated colonoscopy or VR-unsedated procedure, and all patients signed a written informed consent. 28/30 patients successfully completed the colonoscopy using VR headset. Overall satisfaction score was comparable between the groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between VR and controls in colonoscopy duration, or PDR. VR patients had numerically lower rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events than controls. The proportion of VR patients who reported resuming daily activities on the day of the procedure was significantly higher than in the control group. The VR group patients spent significantly less time in the hospital compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: VR technology can provide adequate substitution for sedation for most patients undergoing colonoscopy and offers comparable patient satisfaction and faster return to daily activities.

Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion.

BACKGROUND: Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to control pain; however, many people still experience pain with the procedure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, POPLINE, and Google Scholar to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials of pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using suction aspiration. We searched the reference lists of related reviews and articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected effectiveness and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials that studied local anaesthesia with common local anaesthetics and administration routes given for pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. Outcomes included intraoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We computed mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables reporting a mean. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of interventions, we could not pool more than two studies for any outcome. We used 13 mm improvement on a visual/verbal analogue scale to indicate a clinically meaningful difference in pain with surgical abortion (pain with dilation, aspiration, or during procedure). Based on type of pain control, we divided studies into three groups. Paracervical block (PCB) effectiveness trials A 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB reduced pain with dilation (MD -37.00, 95% CI -45.64 to -28.36), and aspiration (MD -26.00, 95% CI -33.48 to -18.52) compared to a sham PCB (1 RCT, 120 participants; high-certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL of 1% chloroprocaine resulted in a slight reduction in pain with aspiration compared to a PCB with normal saline injected at two or four sites (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.55; 1 RCT, 79 participants; high-certainty evidence). PCB comparative effectiveness trials An ultracaine PCB probably results in little to no clinically meaningful difference in pain during procedure compared to topical cervical lidocaine spray (median 1 point higher, interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A 1000 mg dose of intravenous paracetamol probably does not decrease pain as much as ultracaine PCB during procedure (median 2 points higher, IQR 1 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Various local anaesthetics in PCB comparative effectiveness trials A 10 mL buffered 2% lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.71; 1 RCT, 167 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A buffered lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, 291 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique effectiveness trials PCB: waiting versus no waiting Waiting three to five minutes between 1% lidocaine PCB injection and dilation probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to not waiting (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Topical cervical analgesia Topical 10 mL 2% lignocaine gel probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to KY Jelly (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.14; 1 RCT, 131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants who also received a PCB, 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain during the procedure compared to two pumps of normal saline spray (median -1 point, IQR -2 to -1; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 55 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intravenous paracetamol 1000 mg compared to two pumps of cervical lidocaine spray probably does not results in a clinically meaningful difference in pain procedure (median 1 point, IQR -2 to 2; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique comparative effectiveness trials Depth of PCB The evidence suggests that a 3-cm deep PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to a 1.5-cm deep PCB (MD -1.00, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.91; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). PCB: four sites versus two sites A two-site (4-8 o'clock) 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a four-site (2-4-8-10 o'clock) PCB (MD 8.60, 95% CI 0.69 to 16.51; 1 RCT, 163 participants; high-certainty evidence). Overall, participants reported moderately high satisfaction with pain control and studies reported few adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this updated review indicates that a 20 mL 1% plain lidocaine PCB decreases pain during an abortion procedure. Evidence supports forgoing buffering lidocaine and a wait time between PCB injection and cervical dilation. A 1.5-cm deep injection as opposed to a 3-cm deep injection is sufficient. A two-site PCB injection as opposed to a four-site injection has similar effectiveness. Topical cervical anaesthesia (10 mL 2% lignocaine gel or 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray) as compared to placebo did not decrease pain based on moderate-certainty evidence, but then when compared to PCB, pain control was similar. Due to this inconsistency in evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical anaesthesia, its routine use is presently not supported. This review did not include studies of pain management with conscious sedation but, based on the results of our prior Cochrane review and the 2022 WHO guidelines, we recommend that the option of combination of pain management using conscious sedation plus PCB and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be offered where conscious sedation is available as it further decreases pain.

The use of intranasal sufentanil and/or s-ketamine for treatment of procedural pain in children in an ambulatory setting: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Minor but painful medical procedures are often handled at the operating room. If safe and effective treatment options are available many procedures may be performed outside of the operating room. OBJECTIVE(S): The objective of this study is to assess the adverse events of intranasal s-ketamine and/or sufentanil alone or as part of a multimodal analgesic regime for medical procedures outside of the operating room. Secondary outcomes included analgesic effect, doses and indications for use. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary care paediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Children 1 year up till 18 years. INTERVENTION(S): Intranasal (IN) sufentanil (S), intranasal s-ketamine (K) or the free combination of the two drugs (SK). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The frequency of adverse events including serious adverse events reported by intervention. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2014, 2185 medical procedures were registered, including 652 procedures with IN SK, 1469 procedures with IN S and 64 procedures with IN K. The children's median age was 5.6 years (range 1.0-17.9). Medical procedures with at least one adverse event were 18% with IN SK, 25% with IN K and 18% with IN S. Common adverse events included episodes of vomiting (9%), nausea (8%) and dizziness (3%). In two patients receiving IN S, serious adverse events occurred. One patient had respiratory depression and bronchospasm and another patient with cerebral palsy had a seizure. Both were handled immediately and did not result in any sequelae. The median doses of intranasal sufentanil were 38% lower when combined with s-ketamine (IN SK free combination: sufentanil dose 0.5 µg/kg (range 0.2-1.3) and s-ketamine dose 0.5 mg/kg (range 0.2-1.5). IN S monotherapy, sufentanil dose 0.8 µg/kg (range 0.2-2.7)). Similar analgesic effect was reported for S and SK. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal sufentanil and/or s-ketamine are feasible for the treatment of procedural pain in an ambulatory setting with appropriate per- and post-procedural observations and trained staff.

Risk Factors and Contemporary Management Options for Pain and Discomfort Experienced During a Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate fusion biopsy, an innovative imaging modality for diagnosing prostate cancer, presents certain challenges for patients including discomfort and emotional distress, leading to nonadherence to treatment and follow-ups. To inform clinicians and offer pain relief alternatives to patients, this review delves into the risk factors for increased pain and modern management options to alleviate pain during prostate biopsy. RECENT FINDINGS: Individual responses to pain vary, and the overall experience of pain during a prostate biopsy has been contributed to numerous factors such as patient age, prostate volume, previous biopsy experience, and more. As a result, several strategies aim to mitigate pain during in-office procedures. Notably, techniques including pharmacological analgesics, hand holding, heating pads, entertainment/virtual reality, and distraction have shown significant efficacy. Existing studies explore risk factors influencing pain intensity during prostate biopsy and effective pain management strategies. This review consolidates available information to guide clinicians in enhancing patient comfort and thus, encourage surveillance adherence.

The efficacy of socially assistive robots in improving children's pain and negative affectivity during needle-based invasive treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ability of socially assistive robots (SARs) to treat dementia and Alzheimer's disease has been verified. Currently, to increase the range of their application, there is an increasing amount of interest in using SARs to relieve pain and negative emotions among children in routine medical settings. However, there is little consensus regarding the use of these robots. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SARs on pain and negative affectivity among children undergoing invasive needle-based procedures. DESIGN: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. METHODS: The PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and WanFang databases were searched from inception to January 2024 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (RoB2.0) to assess the risk of bias among the included studies, and we used RevMan 5.4 software to conduct the meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten RCTs involving 815 pediatric subjects were selected for this review and reported outcomes related to pain and emotions during IV placement, port needle insertion, flu vaccination, blood sampling, and dental treatment. Children undergoing needle-related procedures with SARs reported less anxiety (SMD= -0.36; 95% CI= -0.64, -0.09) and fewer distressed avoidance behaviors (SMD= -0.67; 95% CI= -1.04, -0.30) than did those receiving typical care. There were nonsignificant differences between these groups in terms of in pain (SMD = -0.02; 95% CI = - 0.81, 0.78) and fear (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI= -0.06, 0.82). The results of exploratory subgroup analyses revealed no statistically significant differences based on the intervention type of robots or anesthetic use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SARs is a promising intervention method for alleviating anxiety and distress among children undergoing needle-related procedures. However, additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to further validate these conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of this study has been registered in the database PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42023413279).

Impact of virtual reality on peri-interventional pain, anxiety and distress in a pediatric oncology outpatient clinic: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Pain and anxiety-inducing interventions have a major impact on pediatric patients. Pain reduction by virtual reality (VR) during port and vein punctures is well studied. This study investigates peri-interventional reduction of pain, anxiety and distress using VR compared to the standard of care (SOC) in a pediatric oncology outpatient clinic. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled cross-over design, patients aged 6-18 years experience potentially painful interventions accompanied by VR. Observational instruments include NRS, FPS-r, BAADS, mYPAS-SF, PedsQL and SSKJ3-8R. All patients undergo two observations: SOC (A) and VR (B) in a randomized order. In addition, parents and staff are interviewed. Specific conditions for VR in an outpatient clinic setting derived from interprofessional focus group discussion are being explored. RESULTS: Between July 2021 and December 2022 57 eligible patients were included and randomized to the orders A/B (n = 28) and B/A (n = 29). Thirty-eight patients completed both observations. Characteristics in both groups did not differ significantly. More than half of the patients had no previous experience with VR, 5% decided to discontinue VR prematurely. Peri-interventional pain, anxiety and distress were significantly reduced by VR compared with SOC. 71% of patients and 76% of parents perceived punctures with VR to be more relaxed than previous ones. 95% of patients perceived fun with VR goggles. Detailed questionnaires on individual stress and anxiety were returned from 26 of 38 patients. Focus group discussion with staff yielded evidence for successful implementation of VR in an outpatient clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that VR can be used for peri-interventional reduction of pain, anxiety, and distress in the special environment of a pediatric outpatient clinic. Specific conditions must be met for successful implementation. Further studies are needed to identify particularly susceptible patients and to illuminate alternatives for distraction that are feasible to implement with limited resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (ClinicalTrials.gov ID): NCT06235723; 01/02/2024; retrospectively registered. This study adheres to the standard checklist of CONSORT guidelines.

Effectiveness of pharmacological procedural sedation in children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Management of primary healthcare and routine minor procedures for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can be challenging; therefore, when behavioural strategies fail, sedative medications are often employed. We evaluated the effectiveness of the current pharmacological strategies for managing children with ASD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current approaches for procedural sedation in children with ASD. RESULTS: Twenty studies met inclusion criteria. Dexmedetomidine, midazolam, propofol and chloral hydrate were the most efficient agents for successful procedures, while propofol had the highest number of adverse events. The most frequently used agents were dexmedetomidine and midazolam or a combination of the two, and the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine plus midazolam was superior to dexmedetomidine alone. CONCLUSION: Multiple effective drug regimens exist for procedural sedation in children with ASD. These results could support the development of specific guidelines for procedural sedation in children with ASD.

Optimizing pediatric periprocedural pain management part I-Evolving ethics and topical anesthetics.

Pediatric procedure-related pain management is often incompletely understood, inadequately addressed, and critical in influencing a child's lifelong relationship with the larger health care community. We highlight the evolution of ethics and expectations around optimizing periprocedural pain management as a fundamental human right. We investigate the state-of-the-art of topical anesthetics, reviewing their mechanisms of action and providing comparisons of their relative safety and efficacy data to help guide clinical selection. In total, this two-part review offers a combination of conventional approaches and innovative techniques that should be used multimodally-in series and in parallel-to help optimize pain management and provide alternatives to sedation medication and general anesthesia.

Optimizing pediatric periprocedural pain management part II-Adjunct therapies to support the use of infiltrative anesthetics.

Pediatric procedure-related pain management is often incompletely understood, inadequately addressed, and critical in influencing a child's lifelong relationship with the larger healthcare community. We present a comprehensive review of infiltrative anesthetics, including a comparison of their mechanisms of action and relative safety and efficacy data to help guide clinical selection. We also describe the multimodal utilization of adjunct therapies-in series and in parallel-to support the optimization of pediatric periprocedural pain management, enhance the patient experience, and provide alternatives to sedation medication and general anesthesia.

The Effect of Swaddling and Oropharyngeal Colostrum During Endotracheal Suctioning on Procedural Pain and Comfort in Premature Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suctioning (ES) is a painful procedure frequently performed in the neonatal intensive care unit. This procedure negatively affects the comfort level of premature neonates. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of 2 nonpharmacologic methods, swaddling and the administration of oropharyngeal colostrum, on the pain and comfort levels of preterm neonates during ES. METHODS: This randomized controlled experimental study comprised 48 intubated premature neonates (swaddling group n = 16; oropharyngeal colostrum group n = 16; and control group n = 16) at 26 to 37 weeks of gestation. The neonates were swaddled with a white soft cotton cloth or administered 0.4 mL of oropharyngeal colostrum 2 minutes before ES, according to the group in which they were included. Two observers evaluated the pain levels (Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revize [PIPP-R]) and comfort (Newborn Comfort Behavior Scale [COMFORTneo]) of the infants by observing video recordings of before, during, and after the procedure. FINDINGS/RESULTS: A significantly lower mean PIPP-R score was found in the swaddling group during ES compared with the control group ( P = .002). The mean COMFORTneo scores of the swaddling and oropharyngeal colostrum groups during ES ( P < .01, P = .002) and the mean PIPP-R and COMFORTneo scores immediately after ES and 5, 10, and 15 minutes later were significantly lower than the control group ( P < .005). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: Swaddling was effective both during and after the procedure, while oropharyngeal colostrum was effective only after the procedure in reducing ES-related pain in premature neonates. Swaddling and oropharyngeal colostrum were effective in increasing comfort both during and after the procedure.

Nonpharmacological Interventions to Mitigate Procedural Pain in the NICU: An Integrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Small infants experience a myriad of stimuli while in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), with many being painful or stressful experiences, although medically necessary. PURPOSE: To determine what is known about nonpharmacological developmental care interventions used in the NICU to mitigate procedural pain of infants born under 32 weeks gestation. SEARCH/STRATEGY: Five electronic databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were as follows: experimental and nonexperimental studies from all publication years with infants born at less than 32 weeks gestational age; peer-reviewed research articles studying nonpharmacological interventions such as skin-to-skin care, facilitated tucking, nonnutritive sucking, hand hugs, and swaddling; and English language articles. Our search yielded 1435 articles. After the elimination of 736 duplicates, a further 570 were deemed irrelevant based on their abstract/titles. Then, 124 full-text articles were analyzed with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven studies were reviewed. Sucrose, facilitated tucking, pacifier, skin-to-skin care, and human milk appeared to lessen pain experienced during heel sticks, suctioning, nasogastric tube insertions, and echocardiograms. All nonpharmacological interventions failed to prove efficacious to adequately manage pain during retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) examinations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Evidence review demonstrates that healthcare practitioners should use nonpharmacological measures to help prevent pain from day-to-day procedures in the NICU including heel sticks, nasogastric tube insertions, suctioning, echocardiograms, and subcutaneous injections. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future research is necessary to better understand and measure how pain is manifested by very small premature infants. Specific research on mitigating the pain of examinations for retinopathy of prematurity is also needed.

Reducing Procedural Pain and Avoiding Peripheral Intravenous Catheters by Implementing a Feeding Protocol for Late Preterm Infants: A Quality Improvement Project.

BACKGROUND: Late preterm births account for a large portion of preterm births, yet the optimal method of nutrition and enteral feeding in this population remains unclear and often involves intravenous (IV) fluids. PURPOSE: To develop and implement a late preterm feeding protocol in order to decrease the necessity of IV access, decrease the use of starter parenteral nutrition (PN), and reduce the pain endured by an infant in the neonatal intensive care unit. METHODS: The Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement model was utilized as a framework for the implementation of this quality improvement project. A literature review was conducted and subsequently, a feeding protocol was developed and included the more judicious use of starter PN. This protocol was implemented, evaluated, and adopted. A second Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle was completed with the addition of an auto-text reminder incorporated into admission notes in the electronic medical record. RESULTS: The implementation of the protocol significantly reduced placement of IV access and the use of starter (PN) in late preterm infants without considerable differences in balancing measures. The percentage of infants who received peripheral IV access declined considerably from 70% to 42% ( P = .0017) subsequently, less pain endured by the infants. There was a decrease in the initiation of starter PN from 55% to 7% ( P < .00001). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Administering enteral feedings on admission to stable, late preterm infants reduced the need for peripheral IV access and thus decreased pain from this procedure.

The effect of virtual reality on pain and anxiety management during outpatient hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) intervention for pain and anxiety relief during outpatient hysteroscopy. METHODS: Various databases were searched for available clinical trials from inception until June 2023. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared virtual reality intervention versus standard care among women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy. We used Revman software to perform our meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the pain score during the procedure. The secondary outcomes were anxiety during the procedure and pain post-procedure. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to assess pain and anxiety. RESULTS: Six RCTs were retrieved, involving a total of 457 patients. Virtual reality was associated with a significant reduction in pain score during the procedure in comparison with the control group (MD = - 1.43, 95% CI [- 1.69, - 1.16], p < 0.001). In addition, there was a significant decrease in anxiety during the procedure among the virtual reality group compared to the control group (p = 0.01). The pain score post-procedure significantly decreased within the virtual reality group (MD = - 1.52, 95% CI [- 1.78, - 1.26], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality technology is a simple, feasible, and effective intervention for reducing pain and anxiety during outpatient hysteroscopy. More trials are required to confirm our findings.

Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce procedural needle pain in children (6-12 years): A systematic review.

PROBLEM: Children of different age groups frequently undergo painful procedures involving needles, which can be a source of significant discomfort. Regrettably, this aspect of care often receives insufficient attention from healthcare professionals. The existing literature proposes several methodologies for managing procedural pain, with nonpharmacological techniques being particularly promising. These techniques should be adapted to the patient's age, but literature predominantly emphasizes their use with infants. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate their effectiveness in diverse age groups. Consequently, the purpose of this systematic review is to identify non-pharmacological interventions used to prevent needle-related procedural pain in children (age group 6-12 years). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary studies in English language on non-pharmacological interventions in children aged 6-12 years undergoing needle-related procedures found on PubMed, CINAHL and Embase. SAMPLE: A total of 18 studies were included. RESULTS: The results indicate the potential application of various non-pharmacological techniques, with distraction methods standing out. These techniques include activities like utilizing cards, watching cartoons, employing virtual reality and playing video games. CONCLUSIONS: Children's procedural pain represents a significant challenge in treatment plans. Literature offers several approaches, including nonpharmacologic methods, to control this problem. Prioritizing procedural pain management is critical both at clinical and organizational levels to improve the quality of pediatric care. IMPLICATIONS: These findings offer different options to support clinical practice, holding the potential to enhance the quality of patient care.

Effectiveness of ShotBlocker application on reducing the pain of needle-related procedures in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PROBLEM: Needle-related procedures are quite common throughout life, especially during childhood. Pain caused by these procedures is the most common complication. ShotBlocker is an alternative non-pharmacological method to reduce pain during injection-related procedures. However, the effectiveness of the ShotBlocker application in children for reducing pain needle-related procedures remains unclear. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ShotBlocker application on pain during needle-related procedures in children from Randomized Controlled Trials. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eight electronic databases were searched until November 2023 for articles published in English. The methodological quality and evidence strength were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the GRADE approach. A random-effects model was used to determine the effect of the ShotBlocker application on pain levels. The review included results involving assessments from the child, parents, and an observer in pain evaluation. SAMPLE: A total of nine studies with 1205 children patients were included. RESULTS: The evaluation data showed that ShotBlocker application significantly reduced the pain caused by needle-related procedures in children. The Cochrane GRADE approach showed moderate level evidence for the effect of ShotBlocker application on pain during needle procedures. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the studies included in this meta-analysis, it was determined that ShotBlocker application significantly reduced the pain caused by needle-related procedures in children. IMPLICATIONS: ShotBlocker, a non-pharmacological method, can be used by pediatric nurses to reduce pain during needle-related procedures in children. Randomized controlled studies with well-designed methods are needed to create strong evidence in this field.

Efficacy and Pain Tolerance of Alexandrite Laser Hair Removal at Different Stages of the Menstrual Cycle.

BACKGROUND: Several different parameters play a role in the transition of hair follicles to the anagen phase, with the role of androgens, progesterone, and estrogen hormones and receptors being significant. OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of laser hair removal (LHR) and pain tolerance during procedure were investigated during 3 different phases of the menstrual cycle. METHODS: Forty-eight axillae were randomly divided into 3 groups: menstruation, ovulation, and luteal. Three laser sessions were performed on each axilla at a 1-month interval. Blood hormone levels were measured in the patients. An alexandrite laser was applied during LHR sessions. Before each LHR session and 1 month after the third session, hair follicles in 4-cm2 areas in the center of the axillae were counted. Patients self-assessed the pain they felt during the laser application in each session with a visual pain scale. RESULTS: The average values for hair counting in the groups were as follows (M, menstruation; O, ovulation; L, luteinization): M0 = 47.6, M1 = 27.4, M2 = 16.1, M3 = 9.9; O0 = 41.8, O1 = 21.1, O2 = 13.8, O3 = 8.6; and L0 = 49.4, L1 = 27.1, L2 = 15.1, L3 = 9.8. The average values on the visual analog scale scores in the groups were: M1 = 3.94, M2 = 3.06, M3 = 1.94; O1 = 3.50, O2 = 3.06, O3 = 1.69; and L1 = 3.63, L2 = 2.50, L3 = 1.56. Statistical analysis was conducted with Tukey post hoc analysis after analysis of variance. CONCLUSIONS: The results of LHR are not affected by changes in hormone levels during the menstrual cycle in females. Although not statistically significant, it has been observed that pain tolerance during laser application is lower during the menstruation cycle.