Objective: Fear of pain during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion can be a barrier to widespread use of this safe and highly effective contraceptive method. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of topical 10% lidocaine spray for pain control during IUD insertion. Methods: A total of 200 subjects with the request for IUD insertion were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: lidocaine spray (n=100) and placebo (n=100). The pain experienced during the procedure was measured immediately after insertion by a standard Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) administered by a separate researcher with maintenance of allocation concealment. Results: The mean pain score during the procedure was 1.01±1.20 in the lidocaine spray group and 3.23±1.60 in the placebo spray group (p<0.001). Lidocaine spray treatment significantly lowered the overall procedural pain score compared with placebo. Conclusions: Significant pain reduction during IUD insertion can be achieved by using 10% lidocaine spray alone. Lidocaine spray can be accepted as a non-invasive, easy to apply and more comfortable local anaesthetic method for IUD insertion. Trial registration number: NCT02020551.

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a condition characterized by severe, intractable nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. It affects about 0.3–2% of all pregnancies and is thought that HG is a multifactorial disease resulting from the combination of various unrelated conditions such as genetic, hormonal and psychiatric. Although there are studies investigating the relationship between anxiety, depression and HG; however, none have sufficiently clarified this link. The aim of this prospective case–control study was to investigate the possible relationship between depression and HG and compare the prevalence of depression disorders in pregnant women with and without HG. A prospective case–control study was performed at our tertiary referral centre between December 2013 and July 2014. The study group consisted of 78 pregnant women with HG and the control group consisted of 82 healthy pregnant women who never had experienced any nausea and vomiting. No study participants had any pre-pregnancy history of any psychiatric disorder including depression. Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic (SCID-I) and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) was used to evaluate symptoms of depression. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was administered to patients during the psychiatric interview and was evaluated by the same psychiatrist. The mean BDI scores in HG study and healthy control groups were 18.97 ± 9.85 and 6.36 ± 5.61, respectively (p < 0.001). Among the 78 women in the HG study population, 42 (53.9%) of patients had moderate or severe depression disorder. Only 6.1% of patients in the control group had moderate or severe depression. In conclusion, the findings of this study indicated that psychological distress associated with HG was a direct consequence rather than a cause of HG. Therefore, patients with HG during pregnancy should be evaluated with respect to mood disorders as much as their medical conditions.

The present study was aimed to assess the relationship between pain expectation before labour, labour pain and pain perception after the labour. Pregnant women were asked to rate their pain level on a standard continuous visual analogue scale at various time points. Pain expectancy (PE), labour pain (LP) and postpartum pain perception (PPP) scores were calculated. The final study group was composed of 230 pregnant women after exclusions. Mean age of pregnant women was 26.2 ± 5.79. The mean PE, LP, and PPP scores were 70.11 ± 18.82, 75.72 ± 19.2 and 65.84 ± 19.56, respectively. The difference among pain scores was statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between PE and LP or PE and PPP scores (p = 0.27 and p = 0.21). The correlations were statistically significant (p = 0.01 or p = 0.01). In addition, there was a positive correlation between LP and PPP scores (p = 0.87) and the correlation was statistically significant (p = 0.01). This study showed that, if pregnant women had lower expectations of pain before the labour, they indeed experienced lower amount of pain during the labour.

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate standard biometric measurements, such as biparietal diameter (BPD), femur length (FL), abdominal circumference (AC), estimated fetal weight (EFW) and anterior abdomen wall thickness (AAWT) in fetuses complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) at the time of GDM screening, and to compare the results with healthy pregnant controls. Methods: A total of 124 pregnant women between 26 and 28 weeks’ gestation were included in the study. These patients were divided into two groups based on their 75-g oral glucose tolerance test results. The study group consisted of 55 pregnant women with GDM, and 69 healthy pregnant women constituted our control group. Results: The study groups did not differ with respect to the mean BPD, FL, AC and EFW; however, the mean AAWT was significantly higher in the GDM group, 4.07 ± 0.46 mm versus 3.28 ± 0.37 mm in the control group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The only fetal sonographic measurement found to significantly differ between the study groups was the AAWT in 26 weeks at the time of gestational diabetes screening, suggesting that measuring the AAWT may have a role in the evaluation of fetal growth in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes.