Anaesthesia and analgesia for ambulatory hysteroscopic surgery

The Effect of Virtual Reality on the Reduction of Pain in Women with an Indication for Outpatient Diagnostic Hysteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The cognitive distraction caused by Virtual Reality (VR) seems to cause a decrease both in pain and its perception as in the time spent thinking about possible pain, among anxiety about hysteroscopy procedure. The main objective of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of virtual reality for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy. Method: A total of 83 patients underwent outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy in a single-centre, open-label, randomized control trial. Overall, 180 women with medical indication for an outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy were randomized. Ten were excluded due to the impossibility of entering the endometrial cavity caused by a cervical canal that was not permeable, and 15 did not tolerate the pain at the beginning and during the procedure, excluding themselves from the final model. Finally, 154 were analysed per protocol to use VR (n = 82, study group) or standard treatment (n = 72, control group) assessing the differences between both groups by reduction in pain using Visual Analogue Scale score (VAS: 0-10 cm) and clinical data (arterial pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation) at the end of hysteroscopy, at 15 and 30 min after hysteroscopy. Results: Women with VR outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy experienced less pain at final (VAS score 2.451 vs. 3.972, standard mean difference (SMD) -1.521, 95% CI -2.601 to -0.440; p = 0.006), at 15 min (VAS 1.769 vs. 3.300, SMD -1.531, 95% CI -2.557 to -0.504; p = 0.004), and at 30 min (VAS 1.621 vs. 2.719, SMD -1.099, 95% CI -2.166 to -0.031; p = 0.044) after the ending of the hysteroscopy, compared with no VR. Conclusions: The use of VR during outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy proved effective in the reduction of pain in this randomized control trial. It shows wide potential role in ambulatory gynaecologic procedures to avoid repeating tests, perform surgeries without anaesthesia, and the use of medication and its side effects.

High-flow nasal oxygen reduces the incidence of hypoxia in sedated hysteroscopy for assisted reproduction

Backgrounds and aims

Pain is the main reason for hysteroscopy failure. In day-surgical settings, hysteroscopy procedures are commonly performed with the patient under sedation. Hypoxia is the most common adverse event during sedation and can lead to severe adverse events. This study aimed to compare the incidence of hypoxia when using high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) with that when using regular nasal oxygen in patients undergoing hysteroscopy with sedation.

Materials and methods

In this single-center, prospective, randomized, single-blinded study, 960 female patients undergoing elective diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy were randomly enrolled into the following two groups: the regular nasal group [O₂ (3–6 L/min) covered by an HFNO] and the HFNO group [O₂ (30–60 L/min)] from September 2021 to December 2021. All women were sedated with propofol (1.5 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1.5 μg/kg) in the operating room. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxia (75% ≤ SpO₂ < 90%, < 60 s).

Results

HFNO decreased the incidence of hypoxia (75% ≤ SpO₂ < 90%, < 60 s), subclinical respiratory depression (90% ≤ SpO₂ < 95%) and severe hypoxia (SpO₂ < 75% for any duration or 75% ≤ SpO₂ < 90% for ≥ 60 s) from 24.38 to 0.83%, from 11.25 to 1.46% and from 3.75 to 0%, respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In procedures conducted to treat female infertility, HFNO can reduce hypoxia during hysteroscopy in patients sedated with propofol, and it can prevent the occurrence of subclinical respiratory depression and severe hypoxia.

Dexmedetomidine-remifentanil vs propofol-remifentanil for monitored anesthesia care during hysteroscopy: Randomized, single-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although dexmedetomidine has been used as either the anesthetic agent for light sedation or as an adjunct to other sedatives, no study has investigated the usefulness of dexmedetomidine as the main sedative agent for invasive and painful procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Female patients undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to either the dexmedetomidine (group D) or the propofol group (group P). The study drug (0.6 ml/kg; dexmedetomidine 2 μg/ml or propofol 4 mg/ml) was loaded for 10 minutes followed by 0.1 to 0.5 ml/kg/hour to maintain a bispectral index of 60 to 80 during the procedure. In both groups, remifentanil was infused using a target-controlled-infusion system with a target concentration of 2 ng/ml and titrated during the procedure. The incidence rates of intraoperative respiratory depression in both groups were compared. Postoperative pain and patients satisfaction were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 69 female patients were included in this study. Dexmedetomidine significantly decrease the incidence of respiratory depression compared with propofol (15/34 [44.1%] vs 5/35 [14.3%], P = .006, group P and D, respectively). Postoperative pain and patients satisfaction score did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil can reduce the incidence of respiratory depression without increasing hemodynamic complications compared with propofol-remifentanil for MAC during hysteroscopy.

Comparing Transcervical Intrauterine Lidocaine Instillation with Rectal Diclofenac for Pain Relief During Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

There are a number of potential advantages to performing hysteroscopy in an outpatient setting. However, the ideal approach, using local uterine anesthesia or rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, has not been determined. Our objective was to compare the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine instillation with rectal diclofenac for pain relief during diagnostic hysteroscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial on 70 nulliparous women with primary infertility undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy. Subjects were assigned into one of two groups to receive either 100mg of rectal diclofenac or 5mL of 2% intrauterine lidocaine. The intensity of pain was measured by a numeric rating scale 0-10. Pain scoring was performed during insertion of the hysteroscope, during visualization of the intrauterine cavity, and during extrusion of the hysteroscope.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to the mean pain score during intrauterine visualization (p=0.500). The mean pain score was significantly lower during insertion and extrusion of the hysteroscope in the diclofenac group (p=0.001 and p=0.030, respectively). Nine patients in the lidocaine group and five patients in diclofenac group needed supplementary intravenous propofol injection for sedation (p=0.060).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal diclofenac appears to be more effective than intrauterine lidocaine in reducing pain during insertion and extrusion of hysteroscope, but there are no significant statistical and clinical differences between the two methods with regard to the mean pain score during intrauterine inspection.

Evidence-based pain management for endometrial biopsies and IUD insertions

Intrauterine device (IUD) insertions and endometrial biopsies (EMB) are common outpatient office procedures performed by advanced practice nurses. There are currently no guidelines for pain management with either IUD insertions or EMB procedures. Combination modalities are the most likely to impact pain perception, but more research is required in this area.

Remifentanil-propofol versus fentanyl-propofol for monitored anesthesia care during hysteroscopy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of remifentanil-propofol with that of fentanyl-propofol for monitored anesthesia care during hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Operating room and postanesthesia care unit of a university hospital.

PATIENTS

30 ASA physical status I and II adult patients undergoing hysteroscopic procedures.

INTERVENTIONS

After propofol infusion, patients received a bolus of remifentanil (group R, 0.5 microg/kg) or fentanyl (group F, 1 microg/kg) 4 minutes before starting the procedure and then received a continuous infusion of remifentanil (group R, 0.05 microg/kg per min) or bolus doses of fentanyl (group F, 0.5 microg/kg).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients in group R had lower pain scores than patients in group F (0-0 vs 0-7, P < 0.05) and more stable blood pressures (74 +/- 15 vs 85 +/- 9 mmHg, P < 0.05) one minute after the start of the procedure. However, no differences were observed in other variables (recovery profiles and satisfaction scores).

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil seems to be a safe and effective analgesic adjunct for monitored anesthesia care of hysteroscopic surgery.

Endometrial Ablation: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going?

Endometrial ablation (EA) is targeted destruction of the endothelial surface of the uterine cavity. The procedure was originally designed as a less invasive alternative to hysterectomy for the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding unrelated to structural pathology of the uterus, that was not responsive to medical therapy. More recently it has become apparent that the procedure can be performed in the presence of submucous leiomyomas, providing they meet a number of size and location criteria. The first EA serie as published in Germany in the 1930s, but the procedure did not attract much attention until the latter part of the 20th century. Currently, EA can be performed under endoscopic direction with the neodymium:yttrium alumnum garnet laser, with a radiofrequency resectoscope, or with an expanding array of nonresectoscopic EA systems. It is apparent that most but not all of the complications associated with resectoscopic endometrial ablation are eliminated with nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, but serious morbidity has been reported with all of the newer systems to date. Success and patient satisfaction seem to be enduring in the majority of well-selected patients treated in clinical trials, but repeat surgery, usually hysterectomy, is performed in 25% to 40% by 5 years after surgery. Increased efficiencies should be realized if the procedure could be moved to an office setting.