We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Office hysteroscopy and compliance: mini-hysteroscopy versus traditional hysteroscopy in a randomized trial.
Human Reproduction 2003 November
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic hysteroscopy has not yet been generally accepted as a well-tolerated office procedure. The aim of our study was to verify compliance, side-effects and haemodynamic variations when a mini-hysteroscope is used.
METHODS: A prospective randomized trial on office hysteroscopy was performed by comparing the use of a traditional 5 mm hysteroscope (group A) and of a 3.3 mm mini-hysteroscope (group B). Two patient groups (A and B), each comprising 100 cases, were formed on the basis of a randomized computer-generated list.
RESULTS: A marked reduction in the mean (+/- SD) pelvic pain score during office hysteroscopy was seen in group B (2.3 +/- 2.1) as compared with group A (4.6 +/- 2.2) (P < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney test). This result was also confirmed when using an alternative approach: four classes of pelvic pain at the visual analogue score (VAS). A significant reduction was observed in the incidence of moderate and severe pelvic pain in group B at the end of the examination (P = 0.001) and 5-10 min later (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of mini-hysteroscopes (3.3 mm with diagnostic sheath) lowers considerably the level of pelvic pain the patients feel: it is halved in comparison with traditional calibre hysteroscopes (2.3 +/- 2.1, on a 0-10 VAS). Furthermore the outpatient hysteroscopy failure rate is less than half (2%) with the mini-hysteroscope compared with the traditional 5 mm hysteroscope (5%). As for side-effects and haemodynamic parameters, no differences were observed except for an increase (P < 0.05) in bradycardia in group B. The advantage of this technique is self-evident, if the patients' compliance is taken into account: in many cases the introduction or withdrawal of the vaginal speculum was reported as the greatest discomfort.
METHODS: A prospective randomized trial on office hysteroscopy was performed by comparing the use of a traditional 5 mm hysteroscope (group A) and of a 3.3 mm mini-hysteroscope (group B). Two patient groups (A and B), each comprising 100 cases, were formed on the basis of a randomized computer-generated list.
RESULTS: A marked reduction in the mean (+/- SD) pelvic pain score during office hysteroscopy was seen in group B (2.3 +/- 2.1) as compared with group A (4.6 +/- 2.2) (P < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney test). This result was also confirmed when using an alternative approach: four classes of pelvic pain at the visual analogue score (VAS). A significant reduction was observed in the incidence of moderate and severe pelvic pain in group B at the end of the examination (P = 0.001) and 5-10 min later (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of mini-hysteroscopes (3.3 mm with diagnostic sheath) lowers considerably the level of pelvic pain the patients feel: it is halved in comparison with traditional calibre hysteroscopes (2.3 +/- 2.1, on a 0-10 VAS). Furthermore the outpatient hysteroscopy failure rate is less than half (2%) with the mini-hysteroscope compared with the traditional 5 mm hysteroscope (5%). As for side-effects and haemodynamic parameters, no differences were observed except for an increase (P < 0.05) in bradycardia in group B. The advantage of this technique is self-evident, if the patients' compliance is taken into account: in many cases the introduction or withdrawal of the vaginal speculum was reported as the greatest discomfort.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app