Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pain relief during hysterosalpingography: role of intracervical block

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is an important tool for evaluation of tubal factors in infertility. It does not require anesthesia but can be a painful procedure. Thus, this study was undertaken to establish the role of intracervical block as pain relief modality for HSG.

Methods

This prospective, randomized study included hundred women attending the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at a tertiary care centre in India. They were divided randomly through a computer generated table into two groups of 50 women each. In the study group, women received intracervical block along with premedication whereas in the control group women received premedication alone. Each patient was asked to rate her pain at six different points of time (T1–T6) during HSG using Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Verbal descriptive score. The difference in pain scores amongst the two groups was analyzed using independent t test.

Results

Reduction of pain was observed from placement of tenaculum till end of procedure (T3–T6) with intracervical block (p < 0.05). Pain remained at a statistically lower level during the most painful steps i.e. traction of the cervix (VAS: 2.080.49 cm, 95 % C I 1.18–2.98 vs. 4.21.15 cm, 95 % CI 3.3–5.1, p = 0.001) and with the insertion of dye (VAS: 2.640.49, 95 % CI 1.7–3.5 vs. 5.121.45. 95 % CI 4.3–6.0, p = 0.001) in the study group as compared to control group.

Conclusion

Intracervical block can be offered to all women undergoing HSG to make the procedure less painful and thus improve the compliance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hull MG, Glazener CM, Kelly NJ, Conway DI, Foster PA, Hinton RA et al (1985) Population study of causes, treatment and outcome of infertility. Br Med J 291:1693–1697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Taylor A (2003) ABC of subfertility making a diagnosis. BMJ 327:494–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mol BW, Collins JA, Burrows EA, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM (1999) Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in predicting fertility outcome. Hum Reprod 14:1237–1242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ayida G, kennedy S, Barlow D, Chamberlain P (1996) A comparison of patient tolerance of hysterosalpingography-contrast-sonography (HyCoSy) with Echovist-200 and X-ray hysterosalpingography for outpatient investigation of infertile women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 7:201–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Moore DE, Pain associated hysterosalpingography (1985) Ethiodol versus salpinx media. Fertil Steril 38:629–631

    Google Scholar 

  6. Owens OM, Schiff I, Kaul AF, Cramer DC, Burt RA (1985) Reduction of pain following hysterosalpingogram by prior analgesic administration. Fertil Steril 43:146–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Elson EM, Ridley NT (2000) Paracetamol as a prophylactic analgesic for hysterosalpingography: a double blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Radiol 55:675–678

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lorino CO, Prough SG, Aksel S, Abuzeid M, Alexander SE, Wiebe RH (1990) Pain relief in hysterosalpingography: a comparison of analgesics. J Reprod Med 35:533–536

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Costello MF, Horrowitz S, Steigrad S, Saif N, Bennett M, Ekangaki A (2002) Transcervical intrauterine topical local anesthetic at hysterosalpingography: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Fertil Steril 78:1116–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wiebe ER (1992) Comparison of the efficacy of different local anesthetics and techniques of local anesthesia in therapeutic abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167:131–134

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cicinelli E, Didonna T, Schonauer LM, Stragapede S, Falco N, Pansini N (1998) Paracervical anesthesia for hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy in postmenopausal women: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study. J Reprod Med 43:1014–1018

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ezeh UO (1995) Outpatient hysteroscopy: paracervical block. Fertil Steril 64:221–222

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen MA (2002) Paracervical block for labor analgesia: a brief historic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(5):127–130

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson RD, Casablanca Y, Pagano KE, Arthur NA, Bates GW, Propst AM (2007) Intracervical block and pain perception during the performance of a hysterosalpingogram – a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 109:89–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta N, Sharma JB, Mittal S, Singh N, Misra R, Kukreja M (2007) Genital tuberculosis in Indian infertility patients. Int J Gynecol Obstet 97(2):135–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chapman CR, Syrjala K (1990) Measurement of pain. In: Bonica JJ (ed) The management of pain, 2nd edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 580–594

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huskisson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2:1127–1131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ware J, Epps C, Herr K, Packard A (2006) Evaluation of the revised faces pain scale, verbal descriptive scale, numeric rating scale and lowa pain thermometer in older minority adults. Pain Mgt Nurs 7:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. NICE (2004) Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. NICE guidelines

  20. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (1997) The visual analog pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimeters. Pain 72:95–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Liberty G, Gal M, Mazaki E, Eldar-Geva T, Vatashsky E, Margalioth EJ (2005) Pain relief of hysterosalpingography by prior uterine cervical application of lidocaine/prilocaine cream. Fertil Steril 84:127–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamed HO, Shahim AY, Elsamman AM (2009) Hystersalpingo-contrast-sonography versus radiography in the evaluation of tubal patency. Int J Gynecol Obstet 105(3):215–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stacey C, Bown C, Manhire A, Rose D (2000) Hy-Co-Sy-as good as claimed? Br J Radiol 73:133–136

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Scolov D, Boran I, Boiculese L, Tamba B, Anghelache-Lupascu I, Socolov R (2010) Comparison of the pain experienced by infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingo contrast sonography or radiographic hysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 111(3):256–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saunder Riana D, Shwayder James M, Nakajima Steven T (2011) Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril 95(7):2171–2179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ahinko- Hakamaa K, Huhtala H, Ttinkanen H (2007) The validity of air & saline HYy-Co-Sy in tubal patency investigation before insemination treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 132:83–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lim CP, Hasafa Z, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A (2011) Should a hysterosalpingogram be a first-line investigation to diagnose female tubal subfertility in the modern subfertility workup? Hum Reprod 26(5):967–971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, PG Institute of Medical Sciences, 15/8 FM, Medical Enclave, Rohtak, Haryana, 124001, India

    Meenakshi B. Chauhan, Pinkey Lakra, Dehlan Jyotsna, Smiti Nanda & Vani Malhotra

Authors
  1. Meenakshi B. Chauhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pinkey Lakra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dehlan Jyotsna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Smiti Nanda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vani Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meenakshi B. Chauhan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chauhan, M.B., Lakra, P., Jyotsna, D. et al. Pain relief during hysterosalpingography: role of intracervical block. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287, 155–159 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2515-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2515-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation