Effect of Vaginal Stretching and Photobiomodulation Therapy on Sexual Function in Women With Pelvic Floor Myofascial Pain - A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Spasm or increased tonus of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) can cause myofascial pain (MP), which may result in painful intercourse and sexual dysfunction. AIM: The effect of vaginal stretching (VS) with photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is compared to VS with sham PBMT in overall sexual function, rate and severity of painful intercourse at baseline and after treatment in women with pelvic floor MP. METHODS: A double-blind randomized clinical trial of 103 women with MP: 1 group received 10 sessions of VS with PBMT (4 Joules of near-infrared light-808 nm at 3 points), and the other group received VS with sham PBMT. OUTCOMES: Impact of treatment was measured by the number of women experiencing painful intercourse, Pain severity was measured by Visual Analog Scale and sexual function was assessed by the FSFI questionnaire. Variables were assessed at baseline and after ten sessions in the intervention groups. RESULTS: After treatment, the number of women experiencing painful intercourse was significantly lower in both the VS with PBMT group (90.2-55%, P = .001), and VS with sham PBMT group (86.6-46.2%, P < .001). There was a significant reduction in pain measure by Visual Analog Scale (P < .001, [VS with PBMT group: P = .002; VS with sham PBMT group: P < .001]). There was a significant decrease in the number of participants with sexual dysfunction (FSFI score ≤26.55) after the treatment in the VS with PBMT group (92.2-74.5%, P = .003) and in the VS with sham PBMT group (90.4-76.9%, P = .035). Both groups showed improvement in the FSFI pain domain after treatment (P < .001, [VS with PBMT group: P = .038; VS with sham PBMT group: P = .005]). Only the VS with sham PBMT group had a significant increase in FSFI desire and total score (P < .001) after treatment. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We found that VS associated or not with PBMT may be effective in reducing complaints of painful intercourse, alleviating pain severity, and reducing the number of women with pelvic floor MP suffering from sexual dysfunction. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of this study are the randomized design and use of validated questionnaires. Limitation of the study is the lack of a long follow-up period and the lack of a usual care comparison group hampers generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: VS only and VS with PBMT have short-term efficacy in reducing painful intercourse and reducing a number of women with sexual dysfunction. Frederice CP, de Mira TAA, Machado HC, et al. Effect of Vaginal Stretching and Photobiomodulation Therapy on Sexual Function in Women With Pelvic Floor Myofascial Pain - A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Sex Med 2022;19:98-105.

Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain during the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives is a barrier to using these methods, especially for nulligravidas. An intracervical block may be easier and more reproducible than a paracervical block; however, this intervention has not been evaluated in nulligravid women to reduce pain with intrauterine contraceptive insertion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block reduces pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas; and, in addition, to assess whether the intracervical block has any effect on the ease of device insertion and on the overall experience with the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, nulligravidas were block-randomized to 1 of 3 arms prior to 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: 3.6-mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block, sham injection (intracervical dry-needling), or no intervention. The primary outcome was pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. Secondary outcomes were pain at tenaculum placement, ease of insertion (assessed by healthcare providers), and the overall experience with the procedure (pain with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion compared with expectations, discomfort level, wish to undergo another device insertion in the future, and recommendation of the procedure to others). Participants' pain was measured with a 10-cm visual analogue scale and a 5-point Faces Pain Scale. Pain was summarized into categories (none, mild, moderate, severe) and also analyzed as a continuous variable (mean and 95% confidence interval). Our sample size had 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect a 15% difference in pain score measured by visual analogue scale (mean [standard deviation] visual analogue scale score = 5.9 [2.0] cm) and an absolute difference of 20% in the proportion of women reporting severe pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among groups. We used a χ2 test and a mixed-effects linear regression model. We calculated the number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. RESULTS: A total of 302 women were randomized (99 to the intracervical block, 101 to the intracervical sham, and 102 to no intervention), and 300 had a successful device insertion. The intracervical block group had fewer women reporting severe pain than the other groups, both at tenaculum placement (intracervical block: 2% vs sham: 30.2% vs no intervention: 15.2%, P < .0001) and at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion (intracervical block: 26.5% vs sham: 59.4% vs no intervention: 50.5%, P < .0001). The mean (95% confidence interval) pain score reported at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was lower in the intracervical block group than in the other groups (intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs sham: 6.6 [6.2-7.0], P < .0001; intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs no intervention: 5.8 [5.3-6.4], P < .0001). Women from the intracervical block group reported less pain than expected (P < .0001), rated the insertion as less uncomfortable (P < .0001), and were more willing to undergo another device insertion in the future (P < .01) than women in the other groups. The ease of insertion were similar among groups. The number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was 2 and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: A 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block decreased pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas. It also provided a better overall experience during the procedure.