Vaginoscopy for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Comparison of vaginoscopic hysteroscopy and traditional hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Outpatient hysteroscopy is a safe, feasible, and optimum procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the best approach of outpatient hysteroscopy (vaginoscopic vs traditional) in terms of pain, duration of procedure, feasibility, safety, and acceptability.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched from January 2000 to October 2021. No filters or restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing vaginoscopic hysteroscopy with traditional hysteroscopy in an outpatient setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed a comprehensive literature search and collected and extracted data. The summary effect estimate was determined using both fixed effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 2723 patients (vaginoscopic [n = 1378] and traditional hysteroscopy [n = 1345]) were included. Vaginoscopic hysteroscopy was associated with a significant reduction in intraprocedural pain (standardized mean difference, -0.05 [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.33 to -0.23], I2  = 0%), procedural time (standardized mean difference, -0.45 [95% CI, -0.76 to -0.14], I2  = 82%), and fewer side effects (relative risk, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.91], I2  = 0%). The procedure failure rate was similar in both approaches (relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.71-1.32], I2  = 43%). Complications were mostly documented with traditional hysteroscopy.

CONCLUSION

Vaginoscopic hysteroscopy reduces the pain and duration compared with traditional hysteroscopy.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a local anesthetic compared to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug alone significantly reduce the pain associated with vaginoscopic office hysteroscopy

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Pain is the most common cause of office hysteroscopy (OH) failure. There is no consensus on alleviation of pain during OH. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of pain-relieving methods during OH.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized open-label trial included women subjected to OH. All women received 100 mg of ketoprofen intravenously pre-procedure. Women were randomly assigned to 3 arms: A) no local anesthesia, B) infiltration anesthesia with 20 ml of 1% lidocaine solution, C) paracervical block with 20 ml of 1% lidocaine solution. Karl Storz Bettocchi® rigid hysteroscope with a 5 mm operative sheath was used. Intensity of pain in numeric rating scale (NRS), intensity of cervical bleeding, frequency of vasovagal episodes, and failure rate were compared.

RESULTS

The study involved 201 women, 67 in each arm. NRS value during OH was higher in arm A than in B and C (6.3 vs. 5.1 vs. 5.0; p = 0.01). NRS value after OH did not differ and in all arms pain was imperceptible (p = 0.007). Cervical bleeding was more frequent in arm B than in A and C (76.1% vs. 33.4% vs. 35.9%; p < 0.0001), but its intensity did not differ from the other arms (p = 0.3). Vasovagal episode was most common in arm B (p = 0.048). There was no difference in the failure rate between the arms (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The paracervical block, albeit technically the most laborious, has proven to be the most beneficial for the patient in terms of overall comfort and for the surgeon regarding feasibility.

Outpatient Hysteroscopic Polypectomy-A Retrospective Study Comparing Rigid and Semirigid Office Hysteroscopes

Endometrial polyps are one of the most common pathological conditions in gynecology. Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of endometrial polyps. The purpose of this multicenter, retrospective study was to compare patients' pain perception during an operative hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy in an outpatient setting with two different hysteroscopes (rigid and semirigid) and to identify some clinical and intraoperative characteristics that are related to worsening pain during the procedure. We included women that underwent, at the same time as an diagnostic hysteroscopy, the complete removal of an endometrial polyp (using the see-and-treat strategy) without any kind of analgesia. A total of 166 patients were enrolled, of which 102 patients underwent a polypectomy with a semirigid hysteroscope and 64 patients underwent the procedure with a rigid hysteroscope. No differences were found during the diagnostic step; on the contrary, after the operative procedure, a statistically significant greater degree of pain was reported when the semirigid hysteroscope was used. Cervical stenosis and menopausal status were risk factors for pain both in the diagnostic step and in the operative one. Our results confirm that operative hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy in an outpatient setting is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated procedure and indicate that it might be better tolerated if a rigid rather than semirigid instrument is used.

Successful vaginoscopic excision of the vaginal septum in a virgin girl of obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly: Case report and review of literature

Obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly (OHVIRA) is a rare malformation that not only causes severe menstrual cramps shortly after menarche but can also lead to endometriosis and infection in the future. We report a case of OHVIRA successfully managed by vaginoscopic excision of the vaginal septum. A 12-year-old virgin girl presented to our hospital with dysmenorrhea and lower abdominal pain. OHVIRA was diagnosed using magnetic resonance imaging. Vaginoscopic surgery was performed for drainage of hematocolpos and excision of the vaginal septum. Vaginoscopic excision of the vaginal septum was performed using a resectoscope, without a vaginal speculum. The procedure was completed safely without injuring the hymen. This is the first case report of successful excision of the vaginal septum by vaginoscopic surgery for OHVIRA in Japan. Vaginoscopic excision may be one of the effective options for the treatment of vaginal obstruction.

Correlation Analysis of Serum Pepsinogen, Interleukin, and TNF-α with Hp Infection in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Parallel Controlled Clinical Study

Background

Gastric cancer pathological biopsy and visual examination have been the gold standard for gastric cancer diagnosis, but their operation is costly, demanding, and risky, so it is especially important to find an effective examination method in clinical practice.

Aims

To investigate the correlation between serum pepsinogen I (PGI), pepsinogen II (PGII), pepsinogen I and II ratio (PGR), IL-6, and TNF-α and Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection in patients with gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods

Fifty patients with Hp-infected gastric cancer admitted to the Department of Gastroenterology of our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected for the study as the observation group, and another 50 patients without Hp-infected gastric cancer were selected as the comparison group to compare the correlation analysis of PGI, PGII, PGR, IL-6, and TNF-α with Hp infection between the two groups after admission and treatment.

Results

After measurement, PGI and PGII in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the comparison group, and TNF-α, IL-18, and IL-6 in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the comparison group, and the comparative differences were all statistically significant (P < 0.05). The results of multivariate logistic regression model analysis of independent risk factors for gastric cancer showed that IL-18, hs-CRP, and tumor necrosis factor- (TNF-) α were risk factors for Hp infection in gastric cancer.

Conclusion

The expression of IL-18, hs-CRP, and TNF-α factors in Hp-infected gastric cancer patients is correlated. IL-6, IL-18, and TNF-α are involved in the entire process from the onset to the development of Hp-positive gastric mucosal inflammation in patients, which is of great value in the diagnosis of gastric cancer and helps to assess the degree of progression and prognosis of gastric cancer.

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.

Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?

Objective:

Today, thanks to its many advantages, hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach (no-touch) is increasingly being used more in outpatient diagnoses and treatments. However, there are concerns that the “no-touch” technique increases ascending genital tract infections since a speculum is not inserted, and disinfection of the cervix cannot achieve.

Materials and Methods:

Between 2011 and 2017, 302 patients who underwent office hysteroscopy with the vaginoscopic approach (group 1) and 254 patients who underwent hysteroscopy with the standard method under anesthesia in the operating room (group 2) were compared in terms of early complications (within two weeks postoperatively). The primary outcome was early postoperative infection, and the secondary outcome was other early complications, such as bleeding and rupture.

Results:

In this study, the success rate of hysteroscopy with the vaginoscopic approach was 96.4%. According to the visual analog scale scoring system, 88.7% of the patients described mild-to-moderate pain. When group 1 and 2 were compared in terms of postoperative infection (3% and 2.4%, respectively) and other early complication rates (0% and 0.8%, respectively), no statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

Hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach continues to be the gold standard method that is safe and well-tolerated by patients.

Conscious sedation for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of conscious sedation on pain control in office hysteroscopy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched from inception to the 30th October 2020 in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials investigating women undergoing office hysteroscopic procedures, allocated to either conscious sedation or a suitable comparator, where the outcome was pain. Data regarding adverse events, feasibility and satisfaction/acceptability were also collected. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. Standard mean differences (SMD) or Odds Ratios (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous (e.g. mean pain) and dichotomous (e.g. side-effects) outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 339 results, of which seven studies were included for systematic review, with five studies having data suitable for meta-analysis. Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared with local anesthesia, reduced pain during (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01), but not after (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.07) office hysteroscopy. No significant difference in side-effects were noted (OR 15.58, 95% CI 0.08 to 2891.91). Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared to an oral analgesic and antispasmodic, was associated with increased pain, both during (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49) and after (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.93) hysteroscopy and had significantly more side-effects (OR 134.33, 95% CI 16.14 to 1118.17). Inhalational conscious sedation (70% N₂O/30% O₂), when compared to oral analgesia and anxiolysis, showed the greatest reduction in pain during hysteroscopy (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.52), however side-effects were not reported. Whilst patients and hysteroscopists were more satisfied with deeper levels of sedation, resulting side-effects, such as delirium, increased the level of post-procedural attention required, leading to a significantly lower level of satisfaction amongst nursing staff.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of conscious sedation in contemporary hysteroscopic practice should be avoided in the absence of any clear reduction in pain and a higher risk of side-effects.

Outcome comparison between vaginoscopy and standard hysteroscopy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is a traditional diagnostic method, whereas vaginoscopy is a more recent but proven approach. However, most physicians are unfamiliar with vaginoscopy. We aimed to compare the feasibility and tolerability between the two techniques to increase clinical awareness.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 100 patients who underwent office hysteroscopy with either the standard approach or the vaginoscopic approach between May and July 2019. While the standard hysteroscopy group underwent speculum insertion and the cervix was grasped with forceps, the vaginoscopy group did not. The primary outcome was a successfully completed examination. Related outcomes were the pain score, complications, and absence of signs of infection at 1 week after completing the examination.

RESULTS

The success rates of vaginoscopy and standard hysteroscopy were comparable (95.5% vs 96.3%). The median time to complete a vaginoscopy (135 seconds) was significantly shorter than to complete a standard hysteroscopy (190 seconds, p = 0.02). The median pain score was 3 for vaginoscopy, which was significantly lower than that for standard hysteroscopy (5; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the surgical complication rate between vaginoscopy (n = 4) and standard hysteroscopy (n = 3) (relative risk = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-6.00).

CONCLUSION

Vaginoscopy required a shorter time for the completion of the examination and involved lesser pain than the standard hysteroscopy. The success rates were comparable between the two techniques. Therefore, vaginoscopy is a good option for office hysteroscopic examinations.