A randomized trial comparing local intracervical and combined local and paracervical anesthesia in outpatient hysteroscopy

Quality of life and sexuality of postmenopausal women with intrauterine pathologies: a recommended three-step multidisciplinary approach focusing on the role of hysteroscopy

Intrauterine pathologies are common in postmenopausal women and clinicians must identify signs and symptoms accurately to provide the adequate diagnosis and treatment. The quality of life (QoL) and sexuality of women are important outcomes to be considered to provide adequate clinical management of the postmenopausal patient with gynecologic pathologies. The aim of this paper is to propose a simple and replicable three-step multidisciplinary approach to evaluate the psychological outcomes of postmenopausal women with intrauterine pathologies, focusing on the role of hysteroscopy. In particular, the article describes three evaluation steps of those psychological outcomes corresponding to three fundamental moments of the patient's diagnostic and therapeutic path: the initial symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. In our viewpoint, the standard use of such a protocol might considerably improve the QoL of postmenopausal patients undergoing hysteroscopic procedures due to intrauterine pathologies.

Pain management for in-office hysteroscopy. A practical decalogue for the operator

Hysteroscopy is known to be the gold standard for evaluation of intrauterine pathologies, pre-menopausal and post-menopausal abnormal uterine bleeding and, in addition to this, it is a crucial examination in the infertility work-up. In-office operative hysteroscopy incorporates the outstanding possibility of seeing and treating an intracavitary pathology in the same examination, eliminating all the risk related to anesthesia and reducing procedure-related costs. By now, performing operative procedures in the office setting is recognized as feasible and safe. Over the last 20 years, many efforts have been made to implement the in-office operative approach worldwide. However, for some women, in-office hysteroscopy is still considered a painful experience, with reported discomfort at different steps of the hysteroscopic procedures. Moreover, uneventful and tedious sensations might be increased by a high level of anxiety for such examination. For this reason, despite the feasibility of the in-office approach, many clinicians are still afraid of provoking pain during the procedure and rather not to perform surgical procedures in the office, postponing the removal of the pathology in the operating room. To date, there is no consensus concerning pain management for in-office hysteroscopy and different approaches, pharmacological and non-pharmacological aids, as well as several procedural tips and tricks are utilized. Our purpose is to provide a feasible practical decalogue for the operator, to supply adequate management of pain during in-office hysteroscopic procedures, performing challenging operations, shrinking discomfort, aiming to upgrade both women's and operator's satisfaction.

Local anaesthesia for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types and routes of administration of local anaesthetic for pain control during and after office hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until October 2019, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials investigating the use of a local anaesthetic compared to a control, for pain relief in women undergoing diagnostic or operative office hysteroscopy. Average pain scores and data regarding side-effects, feasibility, complications, acceptability and satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 612 citations. A total of 37 studies were included for systematic review, of which data from 20 studies were used for meta-analysis. Local anaesthesia was associated with significantly reduced pain during (SMD -0.57, 95 % CI -0.79 to -0.34) and after (SMD -0.30, 95 % CI -0.54 to -0.06) office hysteroscopy but did not reduce vasovagal episodes (OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.50-1.09). A reduction in intra-procedural pain was observed regardless of type or route of administration. Local anaesthesia did not significantly reduce the risk of procedural failure (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.47-1.11). Insufficient data regarding complications, acceptability and satisfaction were available for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Local anaesthesia via any route of genital tract administration, should be considered when undertaking office diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy to reduce pain during and after the procedure. Further research is needed to understand whether the pain control benefits of local anaesthesia remain apparent with vaginoscopic approaches to office hysteroscopy that avoid genital tract instrumentation.

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.

Evaluation and ranking of different interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To identify the highest-ranked pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy.

METHODS

We conducted an online bibliographic search in different databases from inception till July 2019. We included randomized controlled trials assessing effect of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions on pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy. Our main outcomes were pain scores at different endpoints of the procedure. We applied this network meta-analysis based on the frequentist approach using statistical package 'netmeta' (version 1.0-1) in R.

RESULTS

The review included 39 randomized controlled trials (Women n = 3964). Misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = -3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.06, -0.59]), misoprostol (MD = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.04, -0.81]) and IV analgesia (MD = -2.01, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.25]) were effective in reducing pain during the procedure compared to placebo. Ranking probability showed that misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia was the highest ranked pharmacological treatment for pain relief during the procedure (P score = 0.92) followed by misoprostol alone (P score = 0.78), and IV analgesia (P score = 0.76). Regarding nonpharmacological treatments, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed a significant pain reduction compared to placebo (MD = -1.80, 95% CI [-3.31, -0.29]). TENS ranked as the best nonpharmacological treatment (P score = 0.80) followed by CO₂ distention (P score = 0.65) and bladder distention (P score = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

Combination of misoprostol plus local anesthesia appears to be the most effective pharmacological approach for pain reduction during and after outpatient hysteroscopy. Nonpharmacological approaches as TENS and bladder distention showed considerable efficacy but should be further investigated.

Failed diagnostic hysteroscopy: Analysis of 62 cases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the presented study is to improve the office hysteroscopy success rate identifying some of the factors associated to an unsuccessful procedure. Moreover it would highlight the importance of an adequate patients follow up after office hysteroscopy failure enlightening the uterine pathologies missed at the first attempt.

STUDYDESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study. The Authors reviewed the medical records related to 516 office hysteroscopies performed from January 2016 to November 2018, extrapolating the data from the failed hysteroscopies occurred during this period. After the procedure failure all patients were offered to repeat the hysteroscopy under regional anesthesia in order to identify and treat uterine pathologies. Those patients, who declined to repeat the procedure, received an appropriate follow up. Each failure case is correlated with patient clinical characteristics, indications to hysteroscopy, risk factors presence, hysteroscopy patient compliance, pathology result and patient follow up.

RESULTS

The presented study shows an office hysteroscopy failure rate of about 12 %. Severe pain due to cervical stenosis, previous uterine surgery, postmenopausal status and marked uterine ventrifixation/retroflexion, represent the main reason why the procedure was not completed in an office setting. The uterine cavity was subsequently examined in only 26 (42 %) out of 62 patients who reported hysteroscopy failure, mostly repeating the procedure under regional anesthesia (24 cases) or performing vaginal hysterectomy for associated benign gynaecological pathology (2 cases). Endometrial malign pathology (endometrioid carcinoma) was diagnosed in 2 cases of them (7.7 %). Moreover the endometrial cavity remained so far unexplored in 36 (58 %) out of 62 patients, due to the patient refuse to repeat the hysteroscopy under anesthesia.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Results of the present study suggest that office hysteroscopy should be sussessful at the first attempt due to the patients' refuse, in majority of cases, to repeat the procedure after a failure. To not repeat the hysteroscopy may lead to lose or delay important diagnosis, such as that of endometrial cancer. In this context, to counsel all patients prior the procedure may singnificanly help to identify those who may benefit of pharmacological cervical softening, local anesthetic injection or small caliber hysteroscopes usage, increasing the procedure success rate.

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.

Randomized comparative trial of cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of polyps and myomas

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of two cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine polyps and myomas using the MyoSure^® device.

Patients and methods

This was a randomized, comparative treatment trial conducted by five private Obstetrics and Gynecology practices in the USA. Forty premenopausal women aged 18 years and older were randomized to receive either a combination para/intracervical block protocol of 37 cc local anesthetic administered at six injections sites in association with the application of topic 1% lidocaine gel, or an intracervical block protocol of 22 cc local anesthetic administered at three injections sites without topical anesthetic, for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine polyps and/or a single type 0 or type 1 submucosal myoma ≤3 cm. The main outcomes were a composite measure of procedure-related pain and pain during the postoperative recovery period, assessed by the Wong-Baker Faces Rating Scale (0= no pain to 10= maximum pain). The lesion characteristics, procedure time, and adverse events were summarized.

Results

A total of 17 polyps and eight myomas were removed in the para/intracervical block group, with diameters of 1.3±0.5 cm and 1.8±0.8 cm, respectively. In the intracervical block group, 25 polyps with a mean diameter of 1.2±0.7 cm and 7 myomas with a mean diameter of 1.9±0.9 cm were removed. The mean tissue resection time was 1.2±2.0 minutes and 1.2±1.4 minutes for the para/intracervical and intracervical block groups, respectively. The mean composite procedure-related pain score was low for both cervical block protocols, 1.3±1.4 in the para/intracervical block group vs 2.1±1.5 in the intracervical block group. During the postoperative recovery period, the mean pain scores were 0.3±0.7 vs 1.2±1.7 for the para/intracervical and intracervical block groups, respectively. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusion

The MyoSure procedure for removal of polyps and myomas was well tolerated, with low pain scores reported for both the para/intracervical and intracervical block protocols.

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.

Anxiety at outpatient hysteroscopy

This review summarises current understanding and research on the association between anxiety and outpatient hysteroscopy. Women undergoing hysteroscopy suffer from significant levels of anxiety, with repercussions on pain perception, success rates and satisfaction. Using validated tools such as the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Index (STAI) or the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the outpatient hysteroscopy setting, average state anxiety scores similar or greater than those measured before more invasive procedures under general anaesthesia have been consistently reported. This clearly suggests a significant gap between our clinical viewpoint of what is "minimally invasive" and patients' expectations. In spite of its potential role of confounder in studies on pain-reduction interventions, we found that patient anxiety was evaluated in only 9 (13 %) out of a sample of 70 randomised controlled trials on outpatient hysteroscopy published since 1992. Factors such as trait anxiety, age, indication and the efficiency of the clinic can be correlated to state anxiety before hysteroscopy, but more robust data are needed. Promising non-pharmacological interventions to reduce anxiety at hysteroscopy include patient education, communication through traditional or multimedia approaches, interaction and support during the procedure and music listening.

Random-effects meta-analysis: the number of studies matters

This paper investigates the impact of the number of studies on meta-analysis and meta-regression within the random-effects model framework. It is frequently neglected that inference in random-effects models requires a substantial number of studies included in meta-analysis to guarantee reliable conclusions. Several authors warn about the risk of inaccurate results of the traditional DerSimonian and Laird approach especially in the common case of meta-analysis involving a limited number of studies. This paper presents a selection of likelihood and non-likelihood methods for inference in meta-analysis proposed to overcome the limitations of the DerSimonian and Laird procedure, with a focus on the effect of the number of studies. The applicability and the performance of the methods are investigated in terms of Type I error rates and empirical power to detect effects, according to scenarios of practical interest. Simulation studies and applications to real meta-analyses highlight that it is not possible to identify an approach uniformly superior to alternatives. The overall recommendation is to avoid the DerSimonian and Laird method when the number of meta-analysis studies is modest and prefer a more comprehensive procedure that compares alternative inferential approaches. R code for meta-analysis according to all of the inferential methods examined in the paper is provided.

Hysteroscopy: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians

The objective of this study was to provide guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning hysteroscopy. Vaginoscopy should be the standard technique for diagnostic hysteroscopy (Grade A) using a miniature (≤3.5mm sheath) (Grade A) rigid hysteroscope (Grade C), using normal saline solution distension medium (Grade C), without any anaesthesia (conscious sedation should not be routinely used), without cervical preparation (Grade B), without vaginal disinfection and without antibiotic prophylaxy (Grade B). Misoprostol (Grade A), vaginal oestrogens (Grade C), or GnRH agonist routine administration is not recommended before operative hysteroscopy. Before performing hysteroscopy, it is important to purge the air out of the system (Grade A). The uterine cavity distention pressure should be maintained below the mean arterial pressure and below 120mm Hg. The maximum fluid deficit of 2000ml is suggested when using normal saline solution and 1000ml is suggested when using hypotonic solution. When uterine perforation is recognized during operative hysteroscopy using monopolar or bipolar loop, the procedure should be stopped and a laparoscopy should be performed in order to eliminate a bowel injury. Diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy is allowed when an endometrial cancer is suspected (Grade B). Implementation of this guideline should decrease the prevalence of complications related to hysteroscopy.

[Prevention of the complications related to hysteroscopy: guidelines for clinical practice]

OBJECTIVE

To provide clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) from the French college of obstetrics and gynecology (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning the adverse events related to hysteroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of literature using following Keywords: hysteroscopy; vaginoscopy; infection; perforation; intrauterine adhesions

RESULTS

Vaginoscopy should be the standard technique for outpatient hysteroscopy (grade A) using a miniature (≤ 3.5mm sheath) (grade A) rigid hysteroscope (grade C), using normal saline solution distension medium (grade C), without any anesthesia (conscious sedation should not be routinely used), without cervical preparation (grade B), without vaginal disinfection and without antibiotic prophylaxy (grade B). Misoprostol (grade A), vaginal estrogens (grade C), or GnRH agonist routine administration is not recommended before operative hysteroscopy. Before performing hysteroscopy, it is important to purge the air out of the system (grade A). The uterine cavity distention pressure should be maintained below the mean arterial pressure and below 120 mmHg. The maximum fluid deficit of 2000 mL is suggested when using normal saline solution and 1000 mL is suggested when using hypotonic solution. When uterine perforation is recognized during operative hysteroscopy using monopolar or bipolar loop, the procedure should be stopped and a laparoscopy should be performed in order to eliminate a bowel injury. Diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy is allowed when an endometrial cancer is suspected (grade B).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of this guideline should decrease the prevalence of complications related to office and operative hysteroscopy.

Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention

BACKGROUND

Cervical dilatation and uterine intervention can be performed under sedation, local or general anaesthesia for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. Many gynaecologists use paracervical local anaesthesia but its effectiveness is unclear. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness and safety of paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention, versus no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, sedation and systemic analgesia, and general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We reran our search to August 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013), and reference lists of articles. The original search was performed in January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or controlled clinical studies involving women who underwent cervical dilatation and uterine intervention for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. We included studies which compared paracervical anaesthesia with no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, systemic sedation and analgesia, or general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated the studies, extracted data, and checked and entered data into Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes nine new studies, in total 26 studies with 28 comparisons and involving 2790 participants. No study of local paracervical versus general anaesthesia met our criteria. Ten studies compared local anaesthetic versus placebo. Paracervical local anaesthetic (PLA) reduced pain on cervical dilatation with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.37 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.58) and a relative risk (RR) of severe pain of 0.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). PLA also reduced abdominal pain during, but not after, uterine intervention (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19); there was no evidence of any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Comparisons against no treatment did not demonstrate any effect of PLA. Five studies compared paracervical block with uterosacral block, intracervical block, or intrauterine topical anaesthesia. Two of these studies showed no significant difference in pain during the procedure. Compared to intrauterine instillation, PLA slightly reduced severe pain (from 8.3 to 7.6 on a 10-point scale), which may be negligible. Six studies compared PLA with sedation. There were no statistically significant differences in pain during or after the procedure, postoperative analgesia requirement, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and the operator's perception of analgesia. We performed risk of bias assessment using six domains and found that more than half of the included studies had low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that no technique provided reliable pain control in the 26 included studies. Some studies reported that women experienced severe pain (mean scores of 7 to 9 out of 10) during uterine intervention, irrespective of the analgesic technique used. We concluded that the available evidence fails to show whether paracervical block is inferior, equivalent, or superior to alternative analgesic techniques in terms of efficacy and safety for women undergoing cervical dilatation and uterine interventions. We suggest that woman are likely to consider the rates and severity of pain during uterine interventions when performed awake to be unacceptable in the absence of neuraxial blockade, which are unaltered by paracervical block.

Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. The primary reason for failure is pain. There is no consensus upon the routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of different types of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in patients undergoing hysteroscopy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search of medical literature databases including PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINHAL (to February 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological interventions for pain relief during hysteroscopy were investigated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Results for each study were expressed as a standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval and combined for meta-analysis with Revman 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTS were identified involving a total of 3155 participants, with 15 studies included in the meta-analysis.Meta-analysis (nine RCTs, 1296 participants) revealed a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics during the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.17, I(2) = 82%).Meta-analysis (4 RCTs, 454 participants) demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics within 30 minutes after the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.21, I(2) = 54%).There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo during or within 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of local anaesthetics, NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo more than 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant difference between the number of incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to cervical stenosis between the intervention and control groups (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; 6 RCTs, 805 participants).There were significantly fewer incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to pain in the intervention group than in the control group (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69; two studies, 330 participants).Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the intervention and placebo groups with regards to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of analgesia during and within 30 minutes after outpatient hysteroscopy. 

Local anaesthesia for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types of local anaesthetic for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Women undergoing diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy as outpatients-that is, without general anaesthesia. Study selection criteria Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and reference lists of relevant studies. Two reviewers independently selected trials. Data were abstracted on quality, characteristics, and results.

RESULTS

There were 20 trials (2851 participants). Data from 15 of these were meta-analysed in subgroups defined by type of intervention and study quality. Intracervical (standardised mean difference -0.36, 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.10, I(2)=0%) and paracervical (-1.28, -2.22 to -0.35, I(2)=97%) injections of local anaesthetic significantly reduced the pain in women undergoing hysteroscopy as outpatients, whereas transcervical (-0.11, -0.31 to 0.10, I(2)=27%) and topical application (-0.32, -0.97 to 0.33, I(2)= 90%) did not. Meta-regression showed that paracervical injection was superior to the other anaesthetic methods (P=0.04), a finding that was supported by the high quality subgroup of studies. Use of local anaesthetic did not have a significant effect on the incidence of vasovagal episodes (P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Paracervical local anaesthetic injection is the best method of pain control for women undergoing hysteroscopy as outpatients.

Evaluation of pain in outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy with gas

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the intensity of pain reported by patients undergoing outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Exam performed with a 5-mm lens hysteroscope, vaginal speculum, tenaculum and uterine distention with carbon dioxide gas. Before and after the examination, patients were interviewed to define, in a verbal scale from 0 to 10, pain values that they expected to feel and that they experienced after the end, and also if they would repeat it if indicated. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 15.0, statistic significance was defined as p < 0.05 with a study power of 95%.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included with mean age of 50.9 years, with 32.8% at postmenopause and 6.9% nulliparous. Among those with previous deliveries, mean parity was 2.21 and at least one vaginal delivery had occurred in 63.8%. Only 24.1% of patients knew how the exam would be done, 62.1% needed an endometrial sample and the result was considered satisfactory in 89.7%. The means of expected and experienced pain were similar (6.0 versus 6.1), and 91.4% of women would repeat the hysteroscopy if necessary. The only factor associated with less pain after the exam was previous vaginal delivery, with a decrease of pain score from 7.1 to 5.5 (p = 0.03). Mean pain was significantly lower in those who agreed to repeat the exam (5.8 versus 9.4; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy with gas can be associated with moderate but tolerable discomfort and satisfactory results.