Pain relief in office gynaecology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Safety and Efficiency Outcomes of Ambulatory Gynaecologic Procedures in Canadian Surgical Centres Adopting a Common Model

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to compare the safety and efficiency outcomes of ambulatory gynaecologic procedures performed under conscious sedation and/or local anaesthetic at 2 Canadian institutions.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was completed over 1-year on patients presenting to the ambulatory care centres at 2 Canadian institutions that shared a common care model. Outcomes of interest were lead time (registration to discharge), procedural time, and intraoperative complications. Surgical data was derived from a retrospective chart review and outcomes were compared using the independent t test and one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

A total of 1495 and 1098 patients presented to the 2 sites. The average age of patients was 35.5 ± 12.3 years and 41.7 ± 10.2 years. The most commonly performed procedures were dilatation and curettages at the first centre and operative hysteroscopies at the second centre. Average lead times were similar: 170.3 ± 35.8 minutes and 171.6 ± 45.4 minutes (P = 0.45). There was a significant difference in mean procedural time being 9.8 ± 5.5 minutes and 17.0 ± 10.0 minutes (P < 0.001). The rate of minor intraoperative complications was 3.8% and 6.6% (P = 0.002); whereas the rate of major complications was 2.7% and 3.3% (P = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

In Canada, the majority of gynaecologic procedures are performed under general anesthesia. By comparing outcomes at 2 separate Canadian centres, we demonstrated the reproducibility of a common ambulatory model for minor gynaecologic procedures, supporting the implementation of similar care models across Canada.

Barriers to Office Hysteroscopy in Fellowship Education and Practice

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To identify the top 3 perceived barriers to performing office hysteroscopy (OH) by minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) faculty and fellows and identify opportunities for education on this key topic that will be most effective in fellowship training and MIGS practice.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey study targeted at all American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists-accredited Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery fellows, program directors, and associate program directors in February to April 2022. The survey was designed by faculty who have extensive experience in OH procedures. In addition, a literature search was performed to aid with question design.

SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

This was a REDCap electronic survey administered through the Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery listserv. No additional follow-up was performed after survey completion. The 15-minute survey was sent to 60 program directors, 92 assistant program directors, and 158 fellows, including the incoming class of 2024 and the 2022 fellowship graduates.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 93 responses were received; 67% of respondents performed OH but 73% of those performed 5 procedures or less per month. Most participants controlled pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs +/- paracervical block. The most common perceived barrier to performing OH was concern over pain management. Other commonly cited concerns were equipment costs, sterilization costs, and office staff training; 37% to 44% of respondents also cited lack of departmental support and insufficient clinic time, respectively, as barriers, and 56% indicated they are interested in educational materials on OH.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests general interest in, but a low volume of, OH among MIGS fellows and faculty. The most common perceived barrier was concern regarding pain management. This has been well studied in the literature and likely presents an area for greater education to improve OH utilization. We also uncovered concerns regarding systemic barriers, such as equipment costs, departmental support, and clinic structure. This is an area for further research and advocacy efforts to address barriers to OH on a system level.

The effect of music intervention in decreasing pain and anxiety during outpatient hysteroscopy procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is a common outpatient procedure but procedural pain limits its use. Music could be used as a pain-relieving intervention. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of music on pain and anxiety during outpatient hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, from inception to September 2022. We included only the Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of music on women who underwent outpatient hysteroscopy in reducing pain and anxiety levels compared to no music. We assessed the quality of included RCTs using the risk of bias tool 1 reported in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were pooled as the Mean Differences (MDs) with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in a random-effects model, using Review Manager 5.3 software. Also, we assessed the evidence of the results using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Three RCTs (540 women) were included. Music significantly reduced visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores as well as State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores compared to controls (MD = -1.28; 95% CI [-2.19, -0.36]; P = 0.007) and (MD = -3.91; 95% CI [-6.98, -0.85]; P = 0.01) respectively. Also, the decrease in VAS score for pain was significantly greater in the music group (MD = 1.44; 95% CI [0.44, 2.45]; P = 0.005). However, the change in STAI showed no significant difference between the two groups. The GRADE ratings for all outcomes were very low.

CONCLUSION

Music is a potentially promising method for controlling pain for patients undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy; however, its effect in controlling anxiety is controversial.

Efficacy of Oral Nifedipine, Naproxen, or Placebo for Pain Relief During Diagnostic Hysteroscopy in an Office Setting: A Randomized Pilot Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare nifedipine, naproxen, or placebo for pain relief during diagnostic hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Women scheduled for office diagnostic hysteroscopy (n = 60).

INTERVENTIONS

Women received nifedipine (2 tablets of 10 mg), naproxen (2 tablets of 250 mg), or placebo (2 tablets of 500 mg lactose) 30 to 60 minutes prior to hysteroscopy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in the study (21 in the nifedipine group, 19 in the naproxen group, and 20 in the placebo group). The median pain scores during hysteroscope insertion, measured on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), were 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-0), 2 (0-4) and 1 (0-1) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,14). The median VAS scores during hysteroscopy were 5 (IQR 2-7), 5 (4-8) and 5 (3-7) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,73). The median VAS scores immediately after hysteroscopy were 2 (IQR 0-4), 3 (0-6) and 3 (1-5) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,40). The median VAS scores 30 minutes after hysteroscopy were 1 (IQR 0-2), 1 (0-1) and 1 (0-2) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,63). Hysteroscope insertion failed in 1 case (naproxen group) because of cervica`l stenosis (P,32). Flushes, fatigue and vertigo, 30 minutes after the procedure, were significantly more prevalent in the nifedipine group compared to the naproxen (p < .001, p,03, p,03, respectively) and the placebo group (p < .001, p,01, p,01, respectively). Palpitations occurred only in the nifedipine group (p < .001). The day after the procedure, the headache was most prevalent in the nifedipine group compared to the naproxen group (p,001) and the placebo group (p,001).

CONCLUSION

In our pilot study, pain relief and success rates for office diagnostic hysteroscopy were not significantly different between nifedipine, naproxen, and placebo. Nifedipine was associated with more, albeit tolerable, side-effects.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Pharmacological Strategies and Further Measures for Pain Relief during Hysterosonosalpingography: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for pain relief in women during contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the assessment of tubal patency and uterine disease, compared with placebo or no intervention. In December 2021, we searched the electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Sciencedirect, the Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov) without date restriction: We identified 10 randomized control trials (RCTs) (2098 women) eligible for this systematic review, after applying our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among these, five studies compared the use of painkillers with the placebo, two studies compared different catheter positions in the cervix or in the uterine cavity, and two others considered different temperatures of the contrast medium, as a method to reduce pain. Topical lidocaine applied before the procedure may be associated with effective pain relief during hysterosonography, though the quality of this evidence is low. New echogenic contrast agents and their temperature at 37 °C ensure a less painful procedure. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the efficacy of other analgesics or strategies.

Implementation of Office Hysteroscopy for the Evaluation and Treatment of Intrauterine Pathology

Hysteroscopy provides a minimally invasive strategy to evaluate intrauterine pathology and manage conditions such as abnormal uterine bleeding, infertility, intrauterine adhesions, müllerian anomalies, and intrauterine foreign bodies. Increasing access to hysteroscopy procedures in the office has the potential to improve patient care by minimizing financial and logistical barriers, aiding in streamlined diagnosis and treatment planning, and potentially averting unnecessary operative procedures and anesthesia. Office hysteroscopy refers to procedures performed in outpatient settings where pain management involves no medications, oral nonsedating medications, local anesthetic agents, or oral or inhaled conscious sedation. We present best practices for the implementation of hysteroscopy in an office setting. These include appropriate patient selection, optimal procedural timing, cervical preparation for patients at highest risk of cervical stenosis or pain with dilation, individualized pain-management strategies, use of distension media, and video monitoring to engage patients in the procedure. We describe miniaturized equipment for use in the office setting and "no-touch" vaginoscopic approaches to limit patient discomfort. With appropriate training and experience, office hysteroscopy presents a simple and cost-effective modality for optimizing gynecologic care for our patients.

Efficacy of hyoscine in pain management during hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials from full-text, scientific journal archives to assess the efficacy of hyoscine for the management of pain during in-office hysteroscopy (OH) procedures. Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and the Web of Science were searched for all clinical trials that matched our search criteria. A full assessment of bias was made using the Cochrane Group tool-set. The following outcomes were included: visual analogue scale (VAS) score for postoperative pain, postoperative need for analgesia, and procedure time. In the case of homogeneous data, the analysis was performed using a fixed effects system, and the random effects system was used with heterogeneous data. Inclusion criteria included only randomized clinical trials, and interventions that included patients receiving hyoscine-N-Butyl Bromide during OH, regardless of dose or mode of administration, and compared this with placebo. Three clinical trials were included. The actual mean difference (MD) of the VAS pain score showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: -0.28 (-1.08, 0.52), (p=0.49)]. For postoperative analgesia, the overall MD showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: 0.43 (0.16, 1.14), (p=0.09)]. For procedure time, the combined effect estimate failed to show any significant difference between hyoscine and placebo [MD: -0.66 (-2.77, 1.44) (p=0.54)]. Contrary to previously published data, our meta-analysis using the latest available RCTs fails to show hyoscine as being effective in reducing pain or the need for other forms of anesthesia in OH.

Mini-resectoscope vs morcellator for in-office hysteroscopic myomectomy: Evaluation of results and patient satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

The development of hysteroscopic techniques has led to an advance in submucous myoma treatment, offering a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative. Our objective was to compare the results of hysteroscopic myomectomy when using whether the mini-resectoscope or the MyoSure morcellator, as well as patient satisfaction after the procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional, observational study including 80 patients distributed into two groups: Mini-Resectoscope group (MRG) or MyoSure group (MSG), depending on the instrument used for the in-office hysteroscopic myomectomy. Resection time, pain during entry, pain during resection, number of resections required, complete resection, and total satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

MSG had statistically significant shorter time of entrance. There were no other statistically significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In-office hysteroscopic myomectomy is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction, without differences between the mini-resectoscope or the MyoSure, allowing high rates of complete resection using both instruments. Thus, it is a feasible technique which could be performed with both instruments, depending on the operator's expertise.

A randomized pilot study of electro-acupuncture treatment for hysterosalpingography pain relief and related anxiety

Objective:

To investigate the effect of acupuncture on reducing pain and anxiety related to hysterosalpingography (HSG).

Materials and Methods:

A total of 107 patients planned to undergo HSG were randomly separated into 3 groups; the acupuncture group (n=36), intramuscular diclofenac sodium group (n=35), and control group (n=37). In the acupuncture group, electro-acupuncture was applied to specified points for 20 mins before the procedure. In the intramuscular diclofenac sodium group, an intramuscular injection of 75 mg diclofenac sodium was applied 30 mins before the procedure. No analgesics were administered to the patients in the control group before intervention. Pain was evaluated with a Visual Analog scale (VAS) and anxiety with the State-trait Anxiety inventory -state (STAI-S), preoperatively and at specified times postoperatively.

Results:

The VAS scores at 1 and 5 minutes after HSG were similar in acupuncture group and intramuscular diclofenac sodium group, and significantly lower than in the control group. At 30 mins postoperatively, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups in respect of the VAS scores. The STAI-S scores at 1 hour preoperatively were similar in all the groups (p=0.563). In the comparisons of the STAI-S values at preoperative 5 mins, following acupuncture in acupuncture group and the diclofenac injection in intramuscular diclofenac sodium group, and at postoperative 30 mins, the acupuncture group values were determined to be statistically significantly lower than those of the other groups (p<0.001, p<0.001).

Conclusion:

Acupuncture has similar effects on the reduction of pain as other analgesics and reduces anxiety. It can therefore be used in HSG in suitable clinics.

Transvaginal four-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: Pain perception and factors influencing pain severity

AIM

The purpose is to investigate pain perception during transvaginal four-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (TV 4D-HyCoSy) and factors influencing pain severity.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study included 340 women who underwent TV 4D-HyCoSy examination from January 2016 to October 2017. The factors were recorded, including age, childbearing history, infertility type, history of pelvic inflammation, pelvic surgery, history of uterine manipulation, history of ectopic pregnancy, atropine delivery mode, uterine position, uterine malformation, uterine lesion, fibroid, intrauterine adhesion, polycystic ovary, endometrial implantation cyst, dysmenorrhea score, the degree of patency of fallopian tube and contrast agents dosage. Pain was evaluated during and after TV 4D-HyCoSy. The time point of peak pain was evaluated and the influencing factors of moderate/severe pain were analyzed.

RESULTS

The highest pain occurred at contrast instillation. The independent influencing factors of moderate/severe pain were age (P = 0.021), dysmenorrhea score (P = 0.003) and tubal patency (P < 0.001). Further analysis showed that age affected the pain score when TV 4D-HyCoSy started and the peak pain occurred. Dysmenorrhea score and tubal patency affect the pain score at most time points.

CONCLUSION

Age, dysmenorrhea score and tubal patency are factors influencing the severity of pain during TV 4D-HyCoSy.

Intrauterine fundal anaesthesia during endometrial ablation in the office: A randomised double-blind, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of intrauterine fundal anaesthesia during outpatient endometrial ablation.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomised, double-blinded non-inferiority trial was performed in one hospital and one independent treatment center in the Netherlands. A total of 96 women who were planned for a NovaSure® endometrial ablation under local anaesthesia between December 2015 and February 2018 were included in this trial. These women were randomised to paracervical anaesthesia combined with hysteroscopic fundal infiltration with anaesthestics or paracervical anaesthesia combined with hysteroscopic fundal infiltration with saline. The primary outcome was pain during ablation. To study non-inferiority of paracervical anaesthesia without fundal anaesthesia, we assessed the co-primary endpoints Faces Pain Score and Numeric Rating Score. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at other moments during and after the procedure, postoperative use of analgesics, satisfaction, side-effects and complications. The primary outcomes were tested with a non-inferiority margin (2.0 points on changes in pain), and the secondary outcomes were compared using conventional statistical methods.

RESULTS

Paracervical anaesthesia without fundal anaesthesia did not establish non-inferiority to the combination of paracervical anaesthesia and fundal infiltration with anaesthetics when both primary outcome variables of pain were taken into account (Numeric Rating Scale 5.0 versus 3.9 (mean difference 1.2 (95% CI 0.1-2.2)) and Faces Pain Score 5.4 versus 4.8 (mean difference 0.6 (95% CI -0.3-1.5))). Secondary pain scores measured during the procedure were higher or similar in women receiving fundal infiltration with saline as compared to women who received fundal infiltration with anaesthetics. After the procedure, there were no differences in reported pain scores, satisfaction, and side-effects. In the group who received fundal infiltration with saline, more women were admitted to the hospital because of severe pain (3 versus 0 women) and endometritis (1 versus 0 women).

CONCLUSION

This study did not confirm non-inferiority of paracervical anaesthesia without fundal anaesthesia to the combination of paracervical anaesthesia with fundal anaesthesia in the reduction of pain during endometrial ablation and therefore provides no reason to leave out fundal anaesthesia. We recommend to use fundal anaesthesia combined with paracervical anaesthesia to reduce pain during endometrial ablation in the office.

Management of anxiety and pain perception in women undergoing office hysteroscopy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the literature about the perception and management of anxiety and pain in women undergoing an office hysteroscopic procedure.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for original studies written in English (registered in PROSPERO 2019-CRD42019132341), using the terms 'hysteroscopy' AND 'pain' AND 'anxiety' published up to January 2019. Only original articles (randomized, observational and retrospective studies) about management of anxiety and pain related to the hysteroscopic procedure were considered eligible.

RESULTS

Our literature search produced 84 records. After exclusions, 11 studies including 2222 patients showed the following results: (a) pain experienced during hysteroscopy is negatively affected by preprocedural anxiety; (b) pharmacological interventions seem to be help in reducing pain during hysteroscopy; (c) waiting time before the procedure is a significant factor affecting patients' anxiety; (d) music during the procedure may be helpful in reducing anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of office hysteroscopy is hampered by varying levels of anxiety and pain perceived by women who are candidates for the procedure. For these reasons, it is essential to identify effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies to alleviate these factors. We recommend further studies especially focusing on non-pharmacological interventions to facilitate the dissemination of good clinical practices among hysteroscopists.

Diclofenac versus a combination of hyoscine and diclofenac for outpatient hysteroscopy: A placebo controlled randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

to compare the effect of administering diclofenac sodium and/or oral hyoscine in pain perception during and after outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia.

STUDY DESIGN

a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed in an University Hospital. We included 217 patients submitted to office hysteroscopy for the following indications: diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding, endometrial polyps, submucous myomas, infertility and recurrent miscarriage. Patients were allocated into 3 groups: (Group 1) placebo, (Group 2) diclofenac sodium 50 mg and (Group 3) diclofenac sodium 50 mg plus Hyoscine-N-Butylbromide 10 mg. The primary outcome was the visual analogue score immediately after the procedure. The secondary outcomes included Likert acceptance scale, the need for extra analgesia after the procedure, need to stay in the observation room and the occurrence of vagal symptoms.

RESULTS

Groups were similar according to age, color, age of menarche, gravity, c-section, abortion, presence of pelvic pain, presence of uterine scar, height and body mass index. Patients in all three groups demonstrated similar visual pain scores when submitted to office hysteroscopy (Group 1: 4.18 ± 3.1, Group 2: 4.68 ± 2.9, group 3: 4.45 ± 2.9, P = 0.59). Moreover, patients presented high acceptance scores of the procedure, similar between groups. We performed a subgroup analysis in patients in treatment for chronic pelvic pain and, in this subgroup, prior medication with diclofenac sodium isolated or associated with hyoscine were both effective in decreasing pain levels when compared to placebo (Group 1: 6.0 ± 1.9, Group 2: 3.6 ± 2.1, group 3: 4.2 ± 1.5, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION(S)

Office hysteroscopy is a well tolerated procedure and prior use of analgesic medication was not effective in decreasing pain. In selected patients with chronic pelvic pain the use prior analgesic medication may be beneficial.

Physician experience is associated with greater underestimation of patient pain

OBJECTIVE

Procedural pain is unique in that physicians simultaneously cause and assess it. Experienced male physicians are known to underestimate their female patients' pain more than other physicians. However, it is unknown whether this also occurs in obstetrics/gynecology, where all patients are females. This study addresses the gap in literature on procedural pain assessment accuracy.

METHODS

The present research compares paired pain evaluations from 20 obstetricians/gynecologists and their 92 female patients.

RESULTS

Our data demonstrate that patients' reported pain levels (M = 5.53, SD = 2.7) were significantly higher than their physicians' pain estimates (M = 4.89, SD = 2.19), t = 2.64, p < 0.005. The gap between patients' and physicians' pain estimates was greatest among physicians with the greatest procedural experience (M = 1.49, SD = 2.24), f = 5.72, p < 0.005. Male physicians underestimated their patients' pain significantly more than female physicians do, t = 2.27, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Our results shed light on systematic underestimation of procedural pain and highlight the significance of experience and sex differences in pain evaluation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians' experience influences their perception of patient pain while performing procedures. Experienced male physicians, even those who exclusively treat female patients, need to be aware of this ubiquitous bias in assessing their female patients' procedural pain.

Immersive virtual reality as analgesia for women during hysterosalpingography: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is an accepted radiologic diagnostic modality for initial infertility workup, and is generally considered uncomfortable and painful. However, the management of pain related to HSG remains inefficient. As an emerging nonpharmacologic and noninvasive pain control strategy, virtual reality (VR) distraction has been successfully used in areas such as burns, blunt force trauma, hospital-based needle procedures, dental/periodontal procedures, and urological endoscopy patients. This study aims to evaluate the analgesic effect of VR during HSG.

METHODS/DESIGN

A single-center, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be carried out in the Radiology Department of Yinchuan Women and Children Healthcare Hospital, Yinchuan. A total of 200 participants who are scheduled for HSG will be enrolled in this study. The participants will be randomized (1:1) into two groups: a VR group and a blank control group. The VR group will receive routine care plus immersive VR intervention and the blank control group will receive routine care. Outcomes will be monitored at baseline, immediately after HSG and 15 min after HSG for each group. The primary outcome is the worst pain score during HSG by a visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes include: affective pain, cognitive pain, and anxiety during the HSG procedure; worst pain within 15 min after HSG; patient satisfaction and acceptance with pain management; physiological parameters; adverse effects; HSG results; and immersion perception score of the VR system (for the VR condition only).

DISCUSSION

This study will focus on exploring a simply operated, noninvasive and low-cost analgesia during the HSG procedure. The results of this trial will provide data on the feasibility and safety of VR distraction therapy during HSG.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register, ChiCTR1900021342. Registered on 16 February 2019.

The value of endocervical and endometrial lidocaine flushing before office hysteroscopy: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of flushing the cervical canal and the uterine cavity with local anesthetic in order to reduce the pain felt by patients during office hysteroscopy.

METHODS

A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted between May 1, 2018, and February 28, 2019, involving 260 women undergoing office hysteroscopy at Kasr Al Ainy Hospital, Cairo, Egypt. Women were randomized using a computerized random number generator to intrauterine and intracervical instillation 5 minutes before the procedure of either 5 mL lidocaine 2% diluted in 15 mL normal saline, or 20 mL normal saline alone. The primary outcome measure was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score reported by women during the procedure. Secondary outcomes included VAS score at 10 and 30 minutes after the procedure, the need for analgesia, and occurrence of vasovagal attacks.

RESULTS

Women in the lidocaine flushing group reported a significantly lower VAS score during the procedure (1.8 ± 1.1 vs 5.2 ± 1.8) and 10 and 30 minutes after it (1.3 ± 1.15 and 0.8 ± 0.9 vs 4.3 ± 2.1 and 2.98 ± 1.96) when compared with control women (P<0.001). More women without lidocaine flushing experienced vasovagal attacks (25/130 vs 9/130, P<0.001) and needed analgesia (84/130 vs 13/130, P<0.001) when compared with women with lidocaine flushing.

CONCLUSION

Flushing of the cervical canal and uterine cavity with local anesthetic significantly decreased pain sensation in women undergoing office hysteroscopy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT03530488.

Efficacy and safety of Tramadol as an analgesic in women undergoing vaginoscopic hysteroscopy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Pain or discomfort during the hysteroscopy remains a challenge even after the introduction of small calibre instruments and vaginoscopic techniques. Tramadol, a centrally acting analgesic, is one among the medications used to reduce pain; however, the experience with its use in the vaginoscopic technique is limited. This was a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted to study the effectiveness of oral Tramadol as an analgesic in 100 women undergoing diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Median pain score assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale was lower in the study group compared to the placebo group during the procedure (7 versus 8; p < .001) and immediately after the procedure (6 versus 7; p < .001) Ease of entry, procedure entry time and the adverse effects were similar in both the groups. Administration of oral Tramadol 50 mg, 1 h prior to the procedure may be a safe and effective analgesic in women undergoing diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Even with the use of newer hysteroscopes with small calibres and vaginoscopic techniques, pain and discomfort to the patient during negotiation through the cervix remain the main challenge to the surgeon. Among the several medications reported to reduce pain during the procedure, Tramadol a centrally acting drug with dual analgesic action, both by the µ opioid receptor agonist action and by the inhibiting uptake of serotonin and norepinephrine, can be used. However, studies using oral Tramadol during vaginoscopic hysteroscopy are limited.What do the results of this study add? The median pain score assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale was lower in the study group compared to the placebo group during the procedure (7 versus 8; p < .001) and immediately after the procedure (6 versus 7; p < .001). Ease of entry, procedure entry time and the adverse effects were similar in both the groups.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This study suggests that administration of oral Tramadol 50 mg, 1 h prior to the procedure, may be used as a safe and effective analgesic in women undergoing diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Future trial with a larger sample size is required to confirm the tolerability of its use, as the incidence of adverse effects was low in the study.

Clinical Aspects of HyFoSy as Tubal Patency Test in Subfertility Workup

BACKGROUND

Tubal patency testing is an essential part of female subfertility evaluation. Traditionally, hysterosalpingography (HSG) was the first step to evaluate tubal patency. However, during the past decade Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography (HyCoSy) was introduced in order to avoid radiation exposure and Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography (HyFoSy) has been developed as a safe and less painful alternative.

OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE

The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the currently available HyFoSy literature and related clinical aspects.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase from the introduction of HyFoSy to March 2019. Unfortunately, a meta-analysis was not possible due to a too small number of studies, being mutually incomparable for the various subjects of clinical aspects, even for the reliability as a test for tubal patency.

OUTCOMES

Nine small studies concluded that the accuracy and effectiveness as a test for tubal patency of 2D- and 3D-HyFoSy are comparable or even better than HSG or HyCoSy. With or without using Doppler techniques, 3D-HyFoSy does not seem to offer benefits above real-time 2D-HyFoSy. Five studies reported on pain and discomfort during HyFoSy, concluding that HyFoSy is a well-tolerated, less painful procedure compared to HSG, without a need for the use of analgesics. There are suggestions about an increased pregnancy rate in the first three cycles after the procedure but in no studies pregnancy outcome after HyFoSy was compared with other or no intervention.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

HyFoSy is a promising and safe alternative for HSG with regard to accuracy and effectiveness. HyFoSy lacks radiation and iodine exposure and is a well-tolerated and less painful procedure than HSG, without the need for analgesics. However more research is needed to make clear statements regarding a therapeutic effect of HyFoSy.

Pain relief procedures before high-dose-rate brachytherapy for non-surgical treatment of cervix cancer

Cervical cancer (CC) is a neoplasm with great potential for prevention, but it is still an important public health problem in most developing countries. No significant difference is found in the literature between intracavitary high-dose-rate (HDR) and low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, when considering overall, disease specific, and recurrence-free survivals. Cervical dilatation is mandatory for the insertion of intra-uterine tandems for CC intracavitary brachytherapy. Pain and discomfort may eventually be the limiting factors of the procedure, sometimes leading to unsatisfactory results in terms of adequate position of the applicator set. In this paper, we critically reviewed the current sedation and anesthetic options for comfort and safety procedures when performing intracavitary brachytherapy.

Suprapubic pressure facilitates the procedure of office hysteroscopy: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

To minimize the experienced pain during office hysteroscopy, a number of technical approaches and maneuvers are used. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of suprapubic pressure (SuPuP) applied during hysteroscopy. The impact of this maneuver on experienced pain (assessed by visual analog scale [VAS]) and duration of passage through the cervical canal was measured and compared to a reference group with no SuPuP.

METHODS

Hysteroscopy was performed in study subjects as part of their infertility work-up. Patients were randomized into two groups as part of a controlled trial. In group 1, SuPuP was applied while inserting the scope; in group 2, SuPuP was not applied. Pain experienced during the procedure was measured on a 0-10 VAS. Duration of passage through the cervical canal was measured by analyzing the video of the procedure. The effect of SuPuP was estimated by testing for between-groups differences in these outcomes.

RESULTS

The number of patients included the study was 60. Mean (SD) VAS score was 3.40 (1.276) in group 1 compared to 3.33 (0.802) in group 2 (P = 0.809). Mean (SD) time of passage through the cervical canal in group 1 was 30.5 (18.37) seconds compared to 43.0 (24.51) seconds in group 2 (P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Applying suprapubic pressure could facilitate the procedure by significantly shortening the duration of the passage through the cervical canal, but significantly not reduces the pain experienced during hysteroscopy. Further studies are to be undertaken to investigate the advantages of suprapubic pressure during office hysteroscopy.

Hysteroscopic polypectomy: a comparison between 22 Fr and 26 Fr resectoscopes under paracervical block anesthesia, a randomized controlled study

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope with the traditional 26 Fr unipolar resectoscope in endometrial polypectomy performed under paracervical block anesthesia. Methods: The trial took place in Gynecologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome. Inclusion criteria were: diagnosis of endometrial polyps <3 cm at office hysteroscopy; agreement of patients to perform surgery under paracervical block anesthesia but not in office setting. Patients with ASA physical status classes III or more and with contraindication to operative hysteroscopy were excluded. Before the procedure, the recruited patients were randomly assigned to two groups, 35 to the 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope group (group A) and 35 to the 26 Fr unipolar resectoscope group (group B). Primary endpoint was the time spent for cervical dilatation and resection. Secondary endpoints were pain during and after surgery, efficacy of paracervical block, use of analgesic drugs during and after the procedure, patients' satisfaction, correlation between pain and menopause or parity. Statistical analysis was performed by the SPSS software, and the tests used were Pearson Chi-Square, One-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney test. A p value <.05 was considered significant. Results: The mean time for cervical dilatation was two minutes in group A (26 Fr) and five minutes in group B (22 Fr, p = .001). Operative mean time was four minutes in group A and seven minutes in group B (p = .001). Pain during dilatation was analogous (VAS = 6, p = .054), while during the procedure it was higher in group B (VAS = 1 vs VAS = 2, p = .003). Sufentanil was administered during resection in 19 patients of group A and in 22 patients of group B (p = .754). General anesthesia was never necessary. Postoperative pain was higher in group B (p = .01). Nine patients of group B needed analgesics, as opposed to no patient of group A (p = .002). Conclusions: The 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope appears advantageous compared to the 26 Fr resectoscope in the resection of endometrial polyps <3 cm, in terms of cervical dilatation and operative time, pain and need of postoperative analgesics. Paracervical block is useful and safe in compliant patients at high risk for general anesthesia.

Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. Pain is the primary reason for abandonment of procedure or incomplete assessment. There is no consensus upon routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy, compared with placebo, no treatment or other pharmacological therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of pharmacological interventions with other pharmacological interventions and pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was mean pain score.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTS (3304 participants), of which only 19 reported data suitable for analysis. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in most of the domains assessed. The evidence was low or very low quality, mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. Baseline pain scores were relatively low in all groups. Analgesic versus placebo or no treatment Local anaesthetics Local anaesthetics reduced mean pain scores during the procedure [(SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.19, 10 RCTs, 1496 women, I2 = 80%, low-quality evidence)] and within 30 minutes (SMD 0.50, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.33, 5 RCTs, 545 women, I2 = 43%, low-quality evidence). This translates to a difference of up to 7 mm on a 0-10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) during the procedure and up to 13 mm within 30 minutes, which is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean pain scores after > 30 minutes (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07, 4 RCTs, 450 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), or in rates of vasovagal reactions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13, 8 RCTs, 1309 women, I2 = 66%, very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of non-pelvic pain (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 5.80, 1 RCT, 99 women, very low-quality evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in mean pain scores during the procedure (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.00, 3 RCTs, 521 women, I2 = 81%, low-quality evidence). Pain scores were lower in the NSAIDs group within 30 minutes (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.04, 2 RCTs, 340 women, I2=29%, low-quality evidence) and at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 2 RCTs, 321 women, I2 = 78%, low-quality evidence). This equates to maximum differences of under 7.5 mm on a 0-10 cm scale, which are unlikely to be clinically significant. One RCT (181 women) reported adverse events: there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in vasovagal reactions (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.94, very low-quality evidence). For other reported adverse events (non pelvic pain and allergic reactions) evidence was lacking. Opioids One RCT utilised sublingual buprenorphine and one utilised oral tramadol. Data on pain scores during the procedure were unsuitable for pooling due to inconsistency. Tramadol was associated with a benefit of up to 22 mm on a 0-10 cm scale (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 140 women). However, the effect estimate for this outcome for sublingual opioids did not support a benefit from the intervention (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.39, 164 women). Compared with placebo, the pain score within 30 minutes of the procedure was reduced in the tramadol group, with a difference of up to 17mm on a 0-10cm scale (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.23 , 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the tramadol and placebo groups at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.16, 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence). Nausea and vomiting occurred in 39% of the buprenorphine group, and in none of the placebo group (OR 107.55, 95% CI 6.44 to 1796.46) Analgesic versus any other analgesic Some comparisons did not report pain scores at all time frames of interest, and none reported data on adverse events. One RCT (84 women) compared local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were higher in the group with local intracervical anaesthesia during the procedure (SMD 4.27, 95% CI 3.49 to 5.06, very low-quality evidence), within 30 minutes (SMD 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.05, very low-quality evidence) and at more than 30 minutes (SMD 3.47, 95% CI 2.78 to 4.15, very low-quality evidence). This translates to a possible benefit in the combined group of up to 12 mm on a 0-10 cm scale during the procedure. Benefits at longer follow-up were smaller. One RCT compared antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were lower in the NSAID group than in the local anaesthesia group (during procedure: SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.90 to -0.91; >30 minutes after procedure: SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.41; 80 women, very low-quality evidence). This suggests a possible benefit of during the procedure of up to 23 mm on a 0-10 VAS scale and up to 11 mm >30 minutes after the procedure. Other comparisons included local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia, and opioid versus NSAIDs. Findings were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistent good-quality evidence of a clinically meaningful difference in safety or effectiveness between different types of pain relief compared with each other or with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy.

Office Operative Hysteroscopy: An Update

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard for the evaluation of intracavitary pathology in both premenopausal and postmenopausal patients associated with abnormal uterine bleeding, as well as for the evaluation of infertile patients with suspected cavity abnormalities. Office-based operative hysteroscopy allows patients to resume activities immediately and successfully integrates clinical practice into a "see and treat" modality, avoiding the added risks of anesthesia and the inconvenience of the operating room. For 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has provided a substantial increase in reimbursement for a select number of office-based hysteroscopic procedures. This review provides an update on the indications, equipment, and procedures for office hysteroscopy, as well as the management of complications that may arise within an office-based practice.

What should the optimal intrauterine pressure be during outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy? A randomized comparative study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare lower and higher uterine filling pressures during outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-five women eligible for outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy were included in this randomized double blind comparative study. The subjects were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 80) underwent surgery with lower intrauterine filling pressures (30, 40, and 50 mmHg) and group 2 (n = 81) underwent surgery with higher filling pressures (70, 80, and 100 mmHg). The primary outcome measure was adequate visibility during the procedure. The secondary outcome measure was pain perceived by the patient during and 30 min after the procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 161 patients completed the trial. Group 2 had significantly higher adequate visibility than group 1 (71/80, 88.75% in group 1 and 79/81, 97.5% in group 2, P = 0.008). There was a trend toward increase in pain scores with higher pressures during the procedure. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of visual analog scale pain scores measured 30 min after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Lower uterine filling pressure was associated with lower pain scores with a higher trend towards inadequate visibility. It appears that higher filling pressure can be used for performing office hysteroscopy, but it is associated with higher pain scores.

Role of oral tramadol 50 mg in reducing pain associated with outpatient hysteroscopy: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Several drugs have been used to reduce hysteroscopy-associated pain. Although the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has recommended against the use of opiates in outpatient hysteroscopy, we wished to investigate if opioids can be used if the appropriate opioid was given in the appropriate dose.

AIM

To study the effectiveness of tramadol 50 mg in reducing pain associated with outpatient hysteroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in the outpatient hysteroscopy clinic at Cairo University Hospital. Main outcome measures were the severity of pain during the procedure, immediately after the procedure and 30 minutes later assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS). VAS of 0 indicates no pain and VAS of 10 indicates the worst possible pain.

RESULTS

A total of 140 women who had diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy were randomised to receive oral tramadol 50 mg or placebo one h before performing outpatient hysteroscopy. There was no difference between the groups in the age, parity, duration of the procedures or indications of hysteroscopy. The median pain score was significantly lower in the tramadol group during the procedure (5 vs 6; P = 0.013), immediately after the procedure (3 vs 4; P < 0.036), and 30 minute later (1 vs 2; P = 0.034). Two women in the tramadol group reported nausea, but this was mild and did not warrant cancelling the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral administration of tramadol 50 mg before hysteroscopy reduces the pain evoked by the procedure and the drug was well tolerated by women.

The evolving role of saline infusion sonography (SIS) in infertility

Saline infusion sonography (SIS) has become a valuable diagnostic modality in gynaecology over the last three decades. SIS is now commonly employed for detailed evaluation of the uterine cavity as part of pre-treatment assessment in infertile women. The objective of this paper is review the scientific literature on SIS in infertility. Medline, Ovid and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles. The indications, technical aspects and the potential advantages of SIS are discussed. The efficacy and sensitivity of SIS are compared to hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine polyps, fibroids, intrauterine adhesions and uterine anomalies. Increasing evidence suggests the use of SIS prior to an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle as it has increased sensitivity in the detection of intrauterine pathology. SIS is cost-effective and results in better patient satisfaction scores than hysteroscopy.

Comparison of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and misoprostol for pain relief during and after hysterosalpingography: prospective, randomized, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess whether vaginal misoprostol or oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce pain during and 30 minutes after hysterosalpingography (HSG).

DESIGN

Randomized prospective, controlled, parallel-group study (Canadian Task Force classification I).

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred sixty-eight women with primary infertility who underwent HSG for evaluation of infertility.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Group 1 received 200 μg misoprostol vaginally 6 hours before HSG; group 2, 50 mg diclofenac potassium orally 45 to 60 minutes before HSG; and group 3, no medication. The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate the severity of pain during and 30 minutes after the procedure using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 1 (very favorable) to 10 (very unfavorable). The secondary outcomes were to assess the rate of completion and the vasovagal effects including nausea, vomiting, sweating, weakness, syncope, hypotension, and bradycardia.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the median (25%-75%) VAS pain scores between women administered vaginal misoprostol (median, 6.7 cm; range, 4.7-9 cm) and the control group (median, 6.7 cm; range, 4.6-8.8 cm) during the HSG. However, women in the NSAID group (median, 5.5 cm; range, 3-7.6 cm) reported less pain than did those in the misoprostol group (p = .009) and the control group (p = .03). At 30 minutes after HSG, there was no significant difference in the median VAS pain scores between patients administered NSAIDs (median, 2.3 cm; range, 1.4-4.2) or misoprostol (median, 2.3 cm; range, 1.2-4.4) and the control group (median, 2.2 cm; range, 1.3-4.4).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no benefit in terms of pain reduction with the use of misoprostol during HSG or at 30 minutes after the procedure. However, NSAIDs are associated with pain relief during the HSG procedure.

Current practice in the removal of benign endometrial polyps: a Dutch survey

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current practice of Dutch gynecologists in the removal of benign endometrial polyps and compare these results with the results of a previous study from 2003. In 2009 Dutch gynecologists were surveyed by a mailed questionnaire about polypectomy. Gynecologists answered questions about their individual performance of polypectomy: setting, form of anesthesia, method, and instrument use. The results were compared with the results from the previous survey. The response rate was 70% (585 of 837 gynecologists). Among the respondents, 455 (78%) stated to remove endometrial polyps themselves. Polyps were mostly removed in an inpatient setting (337; 74%) under general or regional anesthesia (247; 54%) and under direct hysteroscopic vision (411; 91%). Gynecologists working in a teaching hospital removed polyps more often in an outpatient setting compared with gynecologists working in a nonteaching hospital [118 (43%) vs. 35 (19%) p < 0.001]. These results are in accordance with the results from 2003. Compared to 2003 there was an increase in the number of gynecologists performing polypectomies with local or no anesthesia [211 (46%) vs. 98 (22%), p < 0.001]. An increase was also noted in the number of gynecologists using direct hysteroscopic vision [411 (91%) vs. 290 (64%), p < 0.001] and 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments [181 (44%) vs. 56 (19%), p < 0.001]. Compared to the situation in 2003, there is an increase in removal under direct hysteroscopic vision, with 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments, using local or no anesthesia. This implies there is progress in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in the Netherlands.