Pain Relief and Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Literature Review

Outpatient hysteroscopy: Suitable for all? A retrospective cohort study of safety, success and acceptability in Australia

BACKGROUND

In Australia, gynaecologists continue to assess and investigate abnormal uterine bleeding with inpatient hysteroscopy despite evidence validating outpatient hysteroscopy services.

AIM

This retrospective cohort study assessed the safety, success and acceptability of office hysteroscopy in a gynae-oncology rapid-access clinic over six years in Sydney, Australia, and included all women without an age or body mass index (BMI) cut-off using a 'see and treat' concept.

METHODS

A database was created and analysed retrospectively for patients who attended office hysteroscopy service between January 2016 and March 2021 (63 months, 481 eligible). An anonymous modified PAT-32 patient satisfaction questionnaire was also offered to an initial cohort after their procedure to gauge insightful feedback about acceptability.

RESULTS

A total of 92% of patients had successful outpatient hysteroscopic access; 24% of cases required hysteroscopy under general anaesthesia (GA) despite pathology in over 50% of cases; 68% of the total were able to be managed with outpatient hysteroscopy and did not require a follow-up GA hysteroscopy. This paper is also the first of its kind to our knowledge to incorporate patients >65 years, those with a BMI >35 and those with a history of cervical stenosis. This study suggests that age and BMI do not impact the success rate of the procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that outpatient hysteroscopy is an acceptable, safe procedure that is well tolerated by patients. Considering our rapid-access hysteroscopy service allowed 68% of the patient cohort to avoid hysteroscopy under GA, we estimate conservatively ~$63 million per year in Australia could be saved by performing office hysteroscopies.

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.

Electronic Continuous Pain Measurement vs Verbal Rating Scale in gynaecology: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain measured with a new electronic device - the Continuous Pain Score Meter (CPSM) - and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) during gynaecological procedures in an outpatient setting, and to correlate these outcomes with baseline anxiety and patient (in)tolerance to the procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective cohort study was undertaken in two centres: a university hospital and a large teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Patients undergoing an outpatient hysteroscopy, colposcopy or ovum pick-up procedure for in-vitro fertilization in one of the two participating hospitals with availability of the CPSM were included. Pain was measured by both the CPSM and the VRS. Patient tolerance to the procedure was reported. Various outcomes of the CPSM were compared with those of the VRS and related to baseline anxiety scores.

RESULTS

Ninety-one of 108 included patients (84 %) used the CPSM correctly during the procedure, and it was possible to analyse the CPSM scores for 87 women (81 %). The CPSM scores were all linearly related to the VRS. The peak pain score on the CPSM (CPSM-PPS) had the strongest correlation with the VRS score for all three procedures. Higher CPSM-PPS was related to patient (in)tolerance to the procedure (p = 0.03-0.002). Anxiety at baseline was not correlated with pain perception, except for VRS during colposcopy (r = 0.39, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients were able to use the CPSM correctly, resulting in detailed information on pain perception for each individual pain stimulus during three outpatient gynaecological procedures. The CPSM-PPS had the strongest correlation with the VRS score and patient (in)tolerance to the procedure.

Low-Dose Ketamine for Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Randomised, Double-Blind Study

Objective

Outpatient hysteroscopy is often accompanied by pain and discomfort along with frequent occurrence of bradycardia and hypotension. This study aimed to observe if intravenous low-dose ketamine reduces the pain scores along with lowering the incidence of bradycardia and hypotension during hysteroscopy.

Methods

This prospective, randomised, double-blind trial was conducted in operating rooms in a tertiary care hospital. In this study, we enrolled 72 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to II undergoing hysteroscopy. We randomised patients into two groups, and both groups received paracervical block. The control group received intravenous pentazocine and promethazine along with saline infusion. The ketamine group received ketamine infusion (0.75 mg kg⁻¹ bolus followed by infusion at the rate of 10 mcg kg⁻¹ min⁻¹). We analysed visual analogue scale (VAS), rescue analgesic consumption, hemodynamic parameters, lowest recorded heart rate, blood pressure, level of sedation, patient’s comfort, surgeon’s satisfaction and nursing staff’s satisfaction.

Results

Analysis of the data revealed that the pain scores were similar in both the groups (p=0.493, p<0.001). Rescue analgesic was required by 47% patients in control group, compared to only 5.6% patients in ketamine group. Episodes of bradycardia and hypotension were more pronounced in the control group than in the ketamine group [77.4±10.9 vs. 78.4±5.5; 67.6±8 vs. 70.1±6 respectively] (p<0.001). Patient comfort and surgeon’s satisfaction were higher in the ketamine group, but nursing satisfaction was higher in the control group. Disorientation was present in 75% patients in the ketamine group as compared to none in the control group.

Conclusion

We concluded that low-dose ketamine in day-care hysteroscopy is an effective and safe agent.

ACOG Technology Assessment No. 13: Hysteroscopy

Hysteroscopy is performed to view and treat pathology within the uterine cavity and endocervix. Diagnostic hysteroscopy allows visualization of the endocervical canal, endometrial cavity, and fallopian tube ostia. Operative hysteroscopy incorporates the use of mechanical, electrosurgical, or laser instruments to treat intracavitary pathology and perform hysteroscopic sterilization procedures. Selection of a distending medium requires consideration of the advantages, disadvantages, and risks associated with various media as well as their compatibility with electrosurgical or laser energy. A preoperative consultation allows the patient and physician to discuss the hysteroscopic procedure, weigh its inherent risks and benefits, review the patient's medical history for any comorbid conditions, and exclude pregnancy. Known pregnancy, genital tract infections, and active herpetic infection are contraindications to hysteroscopy. The most common perioperative complications associated with operative hysteroscopy are hemorrhage, uterine perforation, and cervical laceration. The procedure is minimally invasive and can be used with a high degree of safety.

Office hysteroscopic-guided selective tubal chromopertubation: acceptability, feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of this new diagnostic non-invasive technique in infertile women

The aim of this study was to evaluate accuracy, tolerability and side effects of office hysteroscopic-guided chromoperturbations in infertile women without anaesthesia. Forty-nine infertile women underwent the procedure to evaluate tubal patency and the uterine cavity. Women with unilateral or bilateral tubal stenosis at hysteroscopy with chromoperturbation, and women with bilateral tubal patency who did not conceive during the period of six months, underwent laparoscopy with chromoperturbation. The results obtained from hysteroscopy and laparoscopy in the assessment of tubal patency were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive-predictive value and negative-predictive value were used to describe diagnostic performance. Pain and tolerance were assessed during procedure using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Side effects or late complications and pregnancy rate were also recorded three and six months after the procedure. The specificity was 87.8% (95% CI: 73.80-95.90), sensitivity was 85.7% (95% CI 57.20-98.20), positive and negative predictive values were 70.6% (95% CI: 44.00-89) and 94.7% (95% CI: 82.30-99.40), respectively. Pregnancy rate (PR) within six months after performance of hysteroscopy with chromoperturbation was 27%. Office hysteroscopy-guided selective chromoperturbation in infertile patients is a valid technique to evaluate tubal patency and uterine cavity.

Is outpatient hysteroscopy the new gold standard? Results from an 11 year prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

In Australia, gynaecologists continue to investigate women with abnormal bleeding and suspected intrauterine pathology with inpatient hysteroscopy despite some evidence in the literature that that there is no difference in safety and outcome when compared to an outpatient procedure.

AIMS

This prospective study assessed the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient hysteroscopy over 11 years at a tertiary hospital in Australia. Resource savings were then calculated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective database was analysed from March 2003 to January 2014 (130 months, 990 women).

RESULTS

Successful hysteroscopic access was obtained in 94% of cases. Twenty-six percent of patients required a second procedure, including 132 for endometrial polyps and 33 for submucosal fibroids that were not able to be treated in the outpatient setting. On questioning, 88% of women would be happy to have the procedure again. Factors affecting success were pre-procedure pain, menopausal status and previous vaginal delivery. The difference between pain experienced versus pain expected was a major factor in patient acceptability. A vasovagal episode occurred in 5% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient hysteroscopy was demonstrated to be safe, effective and acceptable to women. Provision of an outpatient hysteroscopy service saves theatre time and approximately $1000 per case. Improved techniques and technology will allow progression to a 'see and treat' service, providing further savings. With budget constraints, increasing wait times for major procedures and concerns about trainee surgical experience, an outpatient hysteroscopy service should be considered the 'gold standard' investigation over hysteroscopy in theatre.

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.

Experience and results of office hysteroscopy at a primary hospital

Our aim was to analyse, retrospectively, the perioperative outcomes of 3,488 office hysteroscopies. Age, menopausal status, parity, medical indications, use or not of anaesthesia, incidents, presence of pathology in the cavity, endometrial pathology, type of surgery and pain assessment details were collected. The mean age of patients was 52.1 years. The most common medical indication was suspicious ultrasound for endometrial disease, and the most frequent symptom was metrorrhagia. We did not use any type of anaesthesia in 89.5% of patients and we could access the uterine cavity in 99.4% of cases. The complication rate was very low though 12% of patients reported severe pain while performing the test. Although office hysteroscopy in outpatients is fully established and is usually well tolerated, there is a group of patients who could benefit from analgesic treatment prior to the test, to improve their tolerance.

Hysteroscopic sterilization in the office setting

Hysteroscopic sterilization is growing in popularity. Nearly 500,000 women have been sterilized using this method, and an increasing number of physicians are now performing this procedure in the office setting. The office setting can provide a cost-effective, convenient, and safe environment for hysteroscopic sterilization. Patients may benefit from avoiding hospital preoperative visits, excessive laboratory evaluation, operating room wait times, and expense associated with hospital care. Physicians may improve productivity through remaining in their office or avoiding operating room delays. This article reviews office-hysteroscopic sterilization with the Essure microinsert system.

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 management for tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy involves inserting a foreign body in both fallopian tubes. Over a three-month period, the tubal lumen is occluded by tissue growth stimulated by the insert. Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy has advantages over laparoscopy or mini-laparotomy, including the avoidance of abdominal incisions and the convenience of performing the procedure in an office-based setting. Pain, an important determinant of procedure acceptability, can be a concern when tubal sterilization is performed in the office.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions to decrease pain during tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

From January to March 2011, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL for relevant trials. We searched for current trials via Clinicaltrials.gov. We also examined the reference lists of pertinent articles and wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that evaluated pain management at the time of sterilization by hysteroscopy. The intervention could be compared to another intervention or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initial data were extracted by one review author. A second review author verified all extracted data. Whenever possible, the analysis was conducted with all women randomized and in the original assigned groups. Data were analyzed using RevMan software. Pain was measured using either a 10-cm or 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). When pain was measured at multiple points during the procedure, the overall pain score was considered the primary treatment effect. If this was not measured, a summation of all pain scores for the procedure was considered to be the primary treatment effect. For continuous variables, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval was computed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 167. Using a 10-cm VAS to measure pain, no significant difference emerged in overall pain for the entire procedure between women who received a paracervical block with lidocaine versus normal saline (mean difference -0.77; 95% CI -2.67 to 1.13). No significant difference in pain score was noted at the time of injection of study solution to the anterior lip of the cervix (mean difference -0.6; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.1), placement of the device in the tubal ostia (mean difference -0.60; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.7), and postprocedure pain (mean difference 0.2; 95% CI -0.8 to 1.2). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8 minutes) and successful bilateral placement (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.19 to 5.28) was not significantly different between groups. During certain portions of the procedure, such as placement of the tenaculum (mean difference -2.03; 95% CI -2.88 to -1.18), administration of the paracervical block (mean difference -1.92; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.00), and passage of the hysteroscope through the external (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.30 to -1.32) and internal os (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.39 to -1.23), use of paracervical block with lidocaine resulted in lower pain scores.Using a 600-point scale calculated by adding 100-point VAS scores from six different portions of the procedure, no significant difference emerged in overall pain between women who received intravenous conscious sedation versus oral analgesia (mean difference -23.00; CI -62.02 to 16.02). Using a 100-point VAS, no significant difference emerged at the time of speculum insertion (mean difference 4.0; 95% CI -4.0 to 12.0), cervical injection of lidocaine (mean difference -1.8; 95% CI -10.0 to 6.4), insertion of the hysteroscope (mean difference -8.7; 95% CI -19.7 to 2.3), placement of the first device (mean difference -4.4; 95% CI -15.8 to 7.0), and removal of the hysteroscope (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI -3.9 to 5.7). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.0 to 1.6 minutes) and time in the recovery area (mean difference 3.6 minutes; 95% CI -11.3 to 18.5 minutes) was not different between groups. However, women who received intravenous conscious sedation had lower pain scores at the time of insertion of the second tubal device compared to women who received oral analgesia (mean difference -12.60; CI -23.98 to -1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available literature is insufficient to determine the appropriate analgesia or anesthesia for sterilization by hysteroscopy. Compared to paracervical block with normal saline, paracervical block with lidocaine reduced pain during some portions of the procedure. Intravenous sedation resulted in lower pain scores during insertion of the second tubal device. However, neither paracervical block with lidocaine nor conscious sedation significantly reduced overall pain scores for sterilization by hysteroscopy.

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.

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 (PLA) but its effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of paracervical anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention when compared with no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, systemic sedation and analgesia, or general anaesthesia (GA).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006), EMBASE (1980 to January 2006) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or controlled clinical studies involving cervical dilatation and uterine intervention for obstetric and gynaecological conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 1855 participants. No study of PLA versus GA met our criteria; eight studies compared PLA versus placebo. Injection of local anaesthetic was slightly less painful than injection of saline placebo, a reduction of 0.87 points (95% CI 0.14 to 1.60) on a 10-point pain scale. Compared to placebo, PLA reduced abdominal pain during uterine intervention equivalent to two or three points on a 10-point pain scale and reduced the risk of severe pain (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). There was no evidence that PLA reduced pain after the uterine intervention and little evidence for any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Pain reduction by PLA was not confirmed in four studies that compared PLA with no treatment. Three studies compared PLA with uterosacral block; intracervical block; and 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 pain scale), which may be negligible. This benefit appeared to be greater for women who required cervical dilatation. Two 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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No technique provided reliable pain control in the 17 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 uterine interventions.

Efficacy of office diagnostic hysterofibroscopy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of hysterofibroscopy as an office diagnostic tool.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification 3.PA-3.QZ).

SETTING

Private university hospital as a tertiary referral medical center.

PATIENTS

All the patients referred to the hospital for diagnostic hysterofibroscopy were enrolled in this study, irrespective of their indications, from January 2002 through December 2004.

INTERVENTIONS

All diagnostic hysterofibroscopy procedures were performed on an outpatient basis and without analgesics or anesthetic.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Feasibility of hysterofibroscopic diagnosis was evaluated by: (1) the ability of the hysterofibroscope to pass through the cervical canal; (2) the quality of vision in the uterine cavity; (3) the severity of pain experienced by the patients; and (4) the complications of the procedures. If an intrauterine mass was revealed during the procedure, the patient was referred for further transcervical resectoscopy (TCR). The efficacy of the hysterofibroscopic diagnosis was evaluated by comparison with the histopathologic diagnosis after the TCR. Overall 2111 patients were enrolled in this study; 78 (3.69%) patients did not complete the procedures because of cervical stenosis, intractable pain during dilation, or poor visibility in the uterine cavity. Of the 2033 remaining, the postprocedure complication rate was low, with only 8 (0.38%) patients experiencing severe vagal reflex with dizziness and nausea and another 35 (1.66%) patients suffering from a short period of moderate to severe uterine contractile pain after the completion of procedures. In this study, 634 (31.19%) patients had submucosal myoma or endometrial polyps and needed additional TCR. The diagnostic accuracy of hysterofibroscopy was 74% in comparison with a traditional histopathologic examination. The most common diagnostic errors happened between the diagnosis of endometrial polyp and the submucosal myoma.

CONCLUSION

Hysterofibroscopy is feasible for the investigation of the uterine cavity in an outpatient setting without anesthesia with acceptable reliability, although some confusion may occur when differentiating between endometrial polyps and submucosal myoma. Postprocedural complications were mostly attributed to vigorous dilation of the cervix.

A new technique to obtain endometrial directed biopsy during sonohysterography: the NiGo device

The primary goal of the clinical evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding is to establish a specific diagnosis in the most efficient and least invasive manner possible. Hysteroscopy (HS) allows physicians to obtain directed biopsy in addition to direct visualization of the uterine cavity and lesions, but often requires ambulatory surgery centers and some anesthesia, or can potentially result in significant patient discomfort. Sonohysterography (SHG) is less invasive than HS but does not allow a histologic sample. A new technique, called the Nicoletti-Gorlero (NiGo) device, was developed and evaluated to obtain histologic results during SHG. This study is a prospective, observational evaluation between the NiGo device technique and standard HS to obtain endometrial samples. The NiGo device was used to obtain an endometrial sample during SHG in 18 women. In a subsequent session, HS was performed to verify the results. From January 2005 through November 2005 both procedures (SHG + biopsy and HS) were performed on 18 patients. The SHG procedures using the NiGo forcep were performed successfully on 15 out of 18 women, and the endometrial sample was obtained in 14 out of 15 patients. In one patient, the endometrial biopsy obtained provided too little tissue to accomplish histologic evaluation. All 13 pathologic results obtained with the NiGo device were identical with those subsequently obtained with HS. The office-based HS procedure was not successful in two women; in these women, an HS procedure performed in the operating room was necessary. The NiGo device technique allows the physician to obtain sonographic-guided biopsies of the entire endometrium during SHG. The technique is less invasive compared with HS. In our small series, there were no complications during the procedure.

[Cervical ripening using misoprostol before hysteroscopy]

Cervical ripening with misoprostol is performed before office or operative hysteroscopy. Aim of this review is to evaluate benefits of cervical ripening with misoprostol before hysteroscopy . Ten studies were selected concerning office or operative hysteroscopy. Cervical ripening with misoprostol seems to be not useful for office hysteroscopy performed with minihysteroscope. Interest of misoprostol in menopausal women with traditional office hysteroscope is debatable. Risk of cervical tear during operative hysteroscopy seems to be reducing with misoprostol. However, interest of misoprostol was not found in all studies. Data were not sufficient to determine adequate dose of misoprostol, time and mode of administration. However, vaginal administration is preferable.

New developments in ambulatory hysteroscopic surgery

In the last decade, advancements have been made in hysteroscopic techniques, instrumentation and indications. Vaginoscopic hysteroscopy is performed without medication, cervical dilation and use of vaginal speculum or cervical tenaculum. To prevent complications during uterine access, both misoprostol and laminaria are equally effective for cervical priming. The use of normal saline to distend the uterus prevents hyponatraemia, but hypervolaemia may still be a major problem. Irrigant fluid deficit is best monitored by automated devices. Bipolar electrosurgical systems do not require dispersive return electrodes and do not generate stray currents, thus minimizing the risk of electrical burns. Tissue debulking and extraction are facilitated by vaporizing electrodes or morcellators. Hysteroscopic indications have expanded to include diagnosis and treatment of missed abortion, and cervical and interstitial pregnancies. The most important advancement of hysteroscopy has been proximal tubal access for sterilization.

Development of a thinner and more flexible type of minihysteroscope with a controlled 90-degree bendable tip for vision-guided endometrium biopsy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the uterine cavity is limited with rigid 5-mm hysteroscopes because of the need for cervical dilatation, reduced movements inside the uterus, and no option for vision-guided biopsy. In cooperation with PolyDiagnost GmbH, Pfaffenhofen, Germany, a new type of flexible minihysteroscope with bendable tip was developed and evaluated.

DESIGN

Prospective and parallel observational interindividual evaluation of flexible minihysteroscope and standard hysteroscope for diagnostic hysteroscopy (Canadian Task Force classification II-3).

SETTING

Obstetrics and gynecology department of a university clinic.

PATIENTS

Nine women, average age 65.0 years (range 46-89 years), with indications for diagnostic hysteroscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

After defining requirements, a novel, thinner, and more flexible minihysteroscope, 18-cm long with a 2.67-mm outer diameter, was developed with straight zero-degree scope, 70-degree vision field, and 6000-pixel resolution. Two working channels, 1.2 mm and 0.55 mm, allow suction-irrigation and introduction of a 1.0-mm biopsy forceps or cytology brush. The tip of the instrument is 90-degree stageless bendable to both sides. Diagnostic hysteroscopy was performed with flexible minihysteroscope followed by standard rigid hysteroscopy to verify results.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

From July 2003 through March 2004, both procedures were performed in nine patients with identical visual and histologic results. No complications occurred. No cervix-dilating instruments were necessary for introduction of the flexible minihysteroscope. Visualization of the entire uterine cavity is improved with the flexible scope because a bendable tip allows better peripheral vision (e.g., of the openings of the tubes). However, movement of the tip should be performed carefully due to potential risk of uterine perforation.

CONCLUSION

This new flexible minihysteroscope is less invasive compared with standard rigid hysteroscopy, which supports performance of ambulatory hysteroscopy and makes increased movements and vision-guided biopsy inside the uterine cavity possible.