Vaginoscopic versus conventional approaches to outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy: a two-centre randomized prospective study

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.

A Low-fidelity Model for Office-based Hysteroscopy with a Vaginoscopic Approach

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Hysteroscopy is an established method for the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology. A vaginoscopic approach for office-based hysteroscopy confers less pain; however, trainees report lack of confidence with this procedure. We sought to create a low-fidelity simulation model for office-based hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach and to evaluate the validity and reliability of this model.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

A single academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible participants included obstetrics and gynecology residents and attendings who regularly perform hysteroscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

The vaginoscopy model was created with an inanimate female pelvis simulator with an exam glove placed within the vagina. Following 2 instructional videos, participants performed a hysteroscopy simulation with a vaginoscopic approach. The primary outcome was total score on a modified Global Rating Scale and Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills outlines a series of steps that must be performed and was created with assistance from experts in hysteroscopy for providing content-oriented evidence of validity. Time to complete each task and total time were tracked. Participants completed a postprocedure survey assessing the model and experience.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 30 physicians participated, with 20 residents (9 junior and 11 senior) and 10 attendings. Attending physicians completed the simulation faster than junior residents (197.2 ± 30.9 vs 289.8 ± 107.4 seconds, p = .022). On the Global Rating Scale, both attending physicians and senior residents scored significantly higher than junior residents (26.1 ± 2.4 vs 22.5 ± 3.7, p = .01). Postsurvey data demonstrated that 93.3% of all participants were satisfied with simulation, 96.6% found it useful, 80% found it realistic, and 93% indicated that they may use this technique in the future.

CONCLUSION

This study shows our low-fidelity model to be effective and useful and to improve confidence for vaginoscopic approach to hysteroscopy. Further studies are needed to assess ability to predict or improve clinical and surgical skills.

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.

Outpatient hysteroscopy is effective for uterine cavity evaluation following failed office-based endometrial biopsy

BACKGROUND

Failure to obtain an office-based endometrial biopsy for abnormal uterine bleeding is not uncommon. Although operating room-based procedures are traditionally considered the gold standard assessment tool in these circumstances, outpatient hysteroscopy is a less invasive, more cost-effective, and safer alternative. However, there is no contemporary Canadian literature on the effectiveness of an outpatient approach for this specific population.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of outpatient hysteroscopy for uterine cavity evaluation for patients who have failed an in-office endometrial biopsy attempt.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients referred to an academic outpatient hysteroscopy unit between January 2015 and January 2018, who underwent an outpatient hysteroscopy following failed endometrial biopsy. Data were collected from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Of the 407 consecutive patients who underwent an outpatient hysteroscopic procedure, 68 met inclusion criteria. Postmenopausal bleeding was the most common indication for initial biopsy, and most failures were attributed to cervical stenosis. Outpatient hysteroscopies were successfully completed in 96% of cases (n = 65/68). Failure resulted from either anxiety and discomfort (n = 2), or severe intrauterine adhesions (n = 1). Overall, 10% of patients subsequently required an operating room-based hysteroscopy, either to complete a myomectomy or polypectomy, or to allow general anesthesia. Outpatient hysteroscopy identified endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in 4.5% and 3% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient hysteroscopy following unsuccessful office endometrial biopsy attempts appears to be a feasible, safe, and cost-effective investigation strategy that may prevent the need for an operating room-based procedure in 90% of cases.

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.

The Use of Hysteroscopy for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Intrauterine Pathology: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 800

This Committee Opinion provides guidance on the current uses of hysteroscopy in the office and the operating room for the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology and the potential associated complications. General considerations for the use of diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy include managing distending media, timing for optimal visualization, and cervical preparations. In premenopausal women with regular menstrual cycles, the optimal timing for diagnostic hysteroscopy is during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle after menstruation. Pregnancy should be reasonably excluded before performing hysteroscopy. There is insufficient evidence to recommend routine cervical ripening before diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy, but it may be considered for those patients at higher risk of cervical stenosis or increased pain with the surgical procedure. In randomized trials, patients reported a preference for office-based hysteroscopy, and office-based procedures are associated with higher patient satisfaction and faster recovery when compared with hospital-based operative hysteroscopy. Other potential benefits of office hysteroscopy include patient and physician convenience, avoidance of general anesthesia, less patient anxiety related to familiarity with the office setting, cost effectiveness, and more efficient use of the operating room for more complex hysteroscopic cases. Appropriate patient selection for office-based hysteroscopic procedures for women with known uterine pathology relies on thorough knowledge and understanding of the target pathology, size of the lesion, depth of penetration of the lesion, patient willingness to undergo an office-based procedure, physician skills and expertise, assessment of patient comorbidities, and availability of proper equipment and patient support. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) agree that vaginoscopy may be considered when performing office hysteroscopy because studies have shown that it can significantly reduce procedural pain with similar efficacy. The office hysteroscopy analgesia regimens commonly described in the literature include a single agent or a combination of multiple agents, including a topical anesthetic, a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, acetaminophen, a benzodiazepine, an opiate, and an intracervical or paracervical block, or both. Based on the currently available evidence, there is no clinically significant difference in safety or effectiveness of these regimens for pain management when compared to each other or placebo. Patient safety and comfort must be prioritized when performing office hysteroscopic procedures. Patients have the right to expect the same level of patient safety as is present in the hospital or ambulatory surgery setting.

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

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of the vaginoscopic approach to office hysteroscopy on patients' experience of pain, when compared with the traditional approach where a vaginal speculum is used.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until December 2019, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials investigating vaginoscopy compared to traditional hysteroscopy on pain experienced by women undergoing diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy in an office setting. Data regarding procedural time, feasibility, incidence of vasovagal reactions and complications, acceptability and satisfaction were also recorded.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 363 results of which seven were selected for systematic review, and six for meta-analysis. The vaginoscopic approach was associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain (4 studies including 2214 patients; SMD -0.27, 95 % CI -0.48 to -0.06), procedural time (6 studies including 2443 patients; SMD -0.25, 95 % CI -0.43 to -0.08) and the incidence of vasovagal episodes (3 studies including 2127 patients; OR 0.35; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.82). Failure rates between the two techniques were similar (p = .90). No study reported significant differences in complications or patient or clinician acceptability or satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians performing office hysteroscopy should use the vaginoscopic technique because it makes office hysteroscopy quicker, less painful and reduces the likelihood of inducing a vasovagal reaction. The traditional approach should only be used when vaginoscopy fails or when the need for cervical dilatation is anticipated.

Is every patient eligible to have an office hysteroscopy? A retrospective analysis of 1301 procedures

Introduction

Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment of uterine pathologies. The office setting seems to be safe, reducing the anesthesia risks and also decreasing the overall costs of the procedure. Recent literature suggests that hysteroscopy performed without anesthesia may not be as painless as it was previously considered. Moreover, not every patient can be referred for a hysteroscopy in an office setting.

Aim

To analyze the factors correlated with a successful hysteroscopy in an office setting.

Material and methods

We analyzed the documentation of 1301 patients who underwent hysteroscopy at our department in the period 2013-2016. The impact of the type of the procedure and the various demographic factors on the need for general anesthesia was assessed.

Results

Almost 80% of all hysteroscopies were performed without analgesia in an office setting. The remaining patients underwent a hysteroscopy in general anesthesia. The key aspect for successful office hysteroscopy is the scope of the performed surgery. Over 91% of diagnostic hysteroscopies have been done without analgesia, but only about 30% of extensive endometrial scratching procedures were performed in an office setting. A previous vaginal delivery increases the chances for a successful office hysteroscopy by about 21%, and in the case of diagnostic procedures, multiparous patients were at an about 79% lower risk of analgesia necessity.

Conclusions

It is possible to perform nearly all diagnostic hysteroscopies in an office setting. In the case of operative hysteroscopy, the most crucial factor is the scope of the procedure.

Vaginoscopy Against Standard Treatment: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether vaginoscopy or standard hysteroscopy was more successful in the outpatient setting.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled multicentre trial.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics at two UK hospitals.

POPULATION

1597 women aged 16 or older undergoing an outpatient hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Women were allocated to vaginoscopy or standard hysteroscopy using third party randomisation stratified by menopausal status with no blinding of participants or clinicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 'success', a composite endpoint defined as: a complete procedure, no complications, a level of pain acceptable to the patient, and no sign of genitourinary tract infection 2 weeks after the procedure.

RESULTS

Vaginoscopy was significantly more successful than standard hysteroscopy [647/726 (89%) versus 621/734 (85%), respectively; relative risk (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10; P = 0.01]. The median time taken to complete vaginoscopy was 2 minutes compared with 3 minutes for standard hysteroscopy (P < 0.001). The mean pain score was 42.7 for vaginoscopy, which was significantly less than standard hysteroscopy 46.4 (P = 0.02). Operative complications occurred in five women receiving vaginoscopy and 19 women receiving standard hysteroscopy (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginoscopy is quicker to perform, less painful, and more successful than standard hysteroscopy and therefore should be considered the technique of choice for outpatient hysteroscopy.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Vaginoscopy is quicker to perform, less painful, and more successful than standard hysteroscopy.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Vaginohysteroscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of vaginal lesions

BACKGROUND

The vaginoscopic approach for hysteroscopy allows detailed endoscopic evaluation of the vaginal walls, fornices, and exocervix.

OBJECTIVES

To review the feasibility and efficacy of vaginohysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of vaginal lesions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic review was performed of PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database to identify papers published in English. The search terms were "hysteroscopy," "vaginoscopy," "vagino-hysteroscopy," and "vaginal lesion." The last review was performed on January 31, 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies in which the diagnosis and treatment of vaginal lesions used the vaginoscopic approach and hysteroscopic instrumentation were reviewed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the identified studies and then analyzed.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies were reviewed. Eleven described one case; one reported observations from two patients, and one study reported a case series. All vaginohysteroscopies reported were performed successfully and without significant complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginohysteroscopy is an easy way to gain access to the cervical canal and an important tool with which to diagnose and treat vaginal lesions.

Setting up of ambulatory hysteroscopy service

There is an obvious trend towards developing ambulatory procedures in gynaecology with ambulatory hysteroscopy as its mainstay. In the recent years, the fast pace of modern technological advances in gynaecologic endoscopy, and particularly in the field of hysteroscopy, have been both thrilling and spectacular. Despite this, the uptake of operative hysteroscopy in ambulatory settings has been relatively slow. There is some apprehension amongst gynaecologists to embark on therapeutic outpatient hysteroscopy, and an organisational change is required to alter the mindset. Although there are best practice guidelines for outpatient hysteroscopy, there are unresolved issues around adequate training and accreditation of future hysteroscopists. Virtual-reality simulation training for operative hysteroscopy has shown promising preliminary results, and it is being aggressively evaluated and validated. This review article is an attempt to provide a useful practical guide to all those who wish to implement ambulatory hysteroscopy services in their outpatient departments.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (8 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 12 October 2014), EMBASE (inception to 12 October 2014), CINAHL (inception to 11 October 2014) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2013 to October 2014) and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 12 randomised trials possibly addressing the research questions. Only two studies (309 women) met the inclusion criteria. Neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth or procedure related complications. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the intervention group treated with hysteroscopic myomectomy and the control group having regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for the outcome of clinical pregnancy. A large clinical benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy cannot be excluded: if 21% of women with fibroids achieve a clinical pregnancy having timed intercourse only, the evidence suggests that 39% of women (95% CI 21% to 58%) will achieve a successful outcome following the hysteroscopic removal of the fibroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17, P = 0.06, 94 women, very low quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the comparison groups for the outcome of miscarriage (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.85, P = 0.50, 30 clinical pregnancies in 94 women, very low quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI can increase the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy: if 28% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy with a simple diagnostic hysteroscopy, the evidence suggests that 63% of women (95% CI 50% to 76%) will achieve a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96, P < 0.00001, 204 women, moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A large benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the chance of clinical pregnancy in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility cannot be excluded. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Pain during diagnostic hysteroscopy: what is the role of the cervical canal? A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a correlation exists between the pain perceived during diagnostic anesthesia-free hysteroscopy and the characteristics of the cervical canal.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational pilot study of 255 women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy. Data analysis included characteristics of the patient and the cervical canal, and the pain experience during the procedure, assessed by visual analog score (VAS). A multiple logistic regression was then carried out in order to exclude confounding factors.

RESULTS

The degree of pain during hysteroscopy was equal to a median VAS score of 2 (range 0-10). Bivariate analysis between patients with VAS>3 and patients with VAS≤3 demonstrated a significant correlation between pain and the presence of synechiae in the cervical canal (P=0.022), the patient's age (P=0.003) and parity (P=0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of cervical synechiae (P=0.0001) [OR=4.99 (95% CI 2.13-11.70)] and parity (P=0.014) [OR=0.42 (95% CI 0.21-0.83)] were significantly correlated with pain. There was no significant correlation with the different angles of the cervical canal.

CONCLUSION

Cervical synechiae appear as a major factor influencing pain during hysteroscopy. While parity acts as a protective factor, the angle of the cervical canal does not seem to play an important role for pain during diagnostic hysteroscopy.

[Intra uterine devices removal during office hysteroscopy: About 36 cases]

OBJECTIVES

To assess effectiveness and patient tolerance of office hysteroscopy performed for the removal of intra-uterine devices (IUDs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single center, retrospective study from May 2005 to June 2012. Analysis of the office hysteroscopy database only retrieving data concerning IUD removals: 36 hysteroscopies were performed for IUD removal with mean age of 40±7 years old (20-51), mean parity of 2.1±1.09 (0-5), and mean gestity of 2.5±1.14 (0-5). The indication was failure of IUD removal in an office setting, mostly because of non-visible sutures (33 cases, 91.6%), in 3 cases owing to broken sutures (8.4%). We performed then an office hysteroscopy using a 5.5mm hysteroscope. Either sutures or the IUD itself were grasped, then removed under visual control. Main end point was technique effectiveness, namely success or failure of IUD removal. Secondary end point equals to patient tolerance.

RESULTS

We included 36 patients. IUD removal was effective in 34 out of 36 cases (94.4% success rate). Patient tolerance was rated good for 12 patients (52%), acceptable for 10 (44%), poor for one (4%) and a vasovagal episode occurred in 3% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Office hysteroscopy performed to remove IUDs difficult to extract is an effective method, generally achieving good patient tolerance and reduced morbidity.

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.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (6 August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (T he Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2012), EMBASE (1974 to October 2012), CINAHL (from inception to October 2012) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2008 to October 2012) and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria and neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth and complications from the procedure. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, there is no evidence of benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy compared to regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for clinical pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.2, P = 0.06, 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.0, P = 0.47, 94 women) (very low-quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI increases the odds of clinical pregnancy (experimental event rate (EER) 63%) compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy only (control event rate (CER) 28%) (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.5 to 8.0, P < 0.00001, 204 women, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hysteroscopic myomectomy might increase the odds of clinical pregnancy in women with unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, but the evidence is at present not conclusive. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI might increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

[Office hysteroscopy: a new examination method in gynecological practice]

Hysteroscopy is a widely used endoscopic method, the "gold standard" for the examination of uterine cavity changes. Office hysteroscopy is an intervention that makes the accomplishment of ambulant examination, opposite to the traditional method. Due to the small diameter of the device the anesthesia is unnecessary, because there is no need of the dilatation of the cervix. Indications of the examination are wide-ranging. Besides the abnormal uterine bleeding, it can be used in the examination of infertility, and those intrauterine changes (polyp, submucosus myoma, adhesion), that were diagnosed by other imagining methods that cause infertility complaints. The aim of our present review is recommend the use of this method because it does not need any preparation and it is minimal invasive. The use of traditional method that needs longer preparation, observation, anesthesia and operating theatre, is only suggested in cases of proven pathology.

Office hysteroscopy: current trends and potential applications: a critical review

Office hysteroscopy is an excellent method of identifying and treating intracavitary uterine lesions. It has become easy to learn and perform; as an aid of modern technological applications, it is safe, accurate, provides immediate results under direct visualisation, and offers the additional benefit of histological confirmation and the discomfort of patients is minimal. We applied an extended literature search to explore the special features and details of the technique itself, as it evolved since it first appeared 30 years back. Our initial goal was to examine potential changes/improvements of the modality, in terms of the instrumentation used and the technique itself, the indications of use, its incorporation in daily practice, and patients' and clinicians' acceptability.

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.

The effectiveness of hysteroscopy in improving pregnancy rates in subfertile women without other gynaecological symptoms: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although hysteroscopy is frequently used in the management of subfertile women, a systematic review of the evidence on this subject is lacking.

METHODS

We summarized and appraised the evidence for the benefit yielded by this procedure. Our systematic search was limited to randomized and controlled studies. The QUOROM and MOOSE guidelines were followed. Language restrictions were not applied.

RESULTS

We identified 30 relevant publications. Hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps with a mean diameter of 16 mm detected by ultrasound doubles the pregnancy rate when compared with diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination, starting 3 months after the surgical intervention [relative risk (RR) = 2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-3.2]. In patients with one fibroid structure smaller than 4 cm, there was a marginally significant benefit from myomectomy when compared with expectant management (RR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.0-3.7). Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus resulted in fewer pregnancies in patients with subfertility when compared with those with recurrent pregnancy loss (RR = 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5-0.9). Randomized controlled studies on hysteroscopic treatment of intrauterine adhesions are lacking. Hysteroscopy in the cycle preceding a subsequent IVF attempt nearly doubles the pregnancy rate in patients with at least two failed IVF attempts compared with starting IVF immediately (RR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.5-2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Scarce evidence on the effectiveness of hysteroscopic surgery in subfertile women with polyps, fibroids, septate uterus or intrauterine adhesions indicates a potential benefit. More randomized controlled trials are needed before widespread use of hysteroscopic surgery in the general subfertile population can be justified.