Speculum Lubrication and Patient Comfort: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse: evaluation of vaginal discharge and pain during pessary cleaning in an outpatient setting

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is effective and safe, but long-term continuation is low. Pain and vaginal discharge may play a role. This study was aimed at evaluating vaginal discharge and pain during pessary cleaning in an outpatient setting and in continuous pessary use.

METHODS

Women with POP who attended the outpatient clinic for pessary cleaning between January and October 2021 were included. Primary outcome was pain during removal and reinsertion of the pessary, measured by an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcome was vaginal discharge, measured by the NRS and Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGI-C). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify associated variables for pain and discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 150 women were included. Mean NRS during pessary removal was 4.3 (± 2.7), with 25% of women scoring a 7 or higher. Mean NRS during reinsertion was 1.8 (± 2.0). A smaller genital hiatus and presence of vaginal atrophy or vulvar skin disease were associated with pain during pessary removal. Mean NRS for vaginal discharge was 2.5 (± 2.3). Twenty-five percent of women reported that their vaginal discharge was "(very) much worse" than before they used a pessary. Presence of vaginal erosions was associated with vaginal discharge in this study population.

CONCLUSIONS

Removing a pessary in an outpatient setting is a painful procedure for many women who use a pessary continuously. Moreover, 25% of these women experience an increase in vaginal discharge while using a pessary. Future research should focus on reducing these disadvantages.

Improving visualization of the cervix during pelvic exams: A simulation using a physical model of the speculum and human vagina as a steppingstone to reducing disparities in gynecological cancers

Pelvic exams are frequently complicated by collapse of the lateral vaginal walls, obstructing the view of the cervix. To overcome this, physicians frequently repurpose a glove or a condom as a sheath placed over the speculum blades to retract the lateral vaginal walls. Despite their regular use in clinical practice, little research has been done comparing the relative efficacy of these methods. Better visualization of the cervix can benefit patients by decreasing examination-related discomfort, improving cancer screening accuracy, and preventing the need to move the examination to the operating room under general anesthesia. This study presents a physical model that simulates vaginal pressure being exerted around a speculum. Using it, we conduct controlled experiments comparing the efficacy of different condom types, glove materials, glove sizes, and techniques to place gloves on the speculum. The results show that the best sheath is the middle finger of nitrile-material gloves. They provide adequate lateral wall retraction without significantly restricting the opening of the speculum. In comparison, condoms provide a smaller amount of retraction due to loosely fitting the speculum. They may still be a reasonable option for a different speculum size. However, vinyl-material gloves are an impractical option for sheaths; they greatly restrict speculum opening, occasionally even breaking the speculum, which overcome its retraction benefits. Glove size, condom brand, and condom material (latex vs polyisoprene) had minimal impact. This study serves as a guide for clinicians as they use easily accessible tools to perform difficult pelvic exams. We recommend that physicians consider nitrile gloves as the preferred option for a sheath around a speculum. Additionally, this study demonstrates proof-of-concept of a physical model that quantitatively describes different materials on their ability to improve cervical access. This model can be used in future research with more speculum and material combinations, including with materials custom-designed for vaginal retraction.

[Pelvic exam in gynecology and obstetrics: Guidelines for clinical practice]

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for the pelvic clinical exam in gynecology and obstetrics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multidisciplinary experts consensus committee of 45 experts was formed, including representatives of patients' associations and users of the health system. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any funding. The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized.

METHODS

The committee studied 40 questions within 4 fields for symptomatic or asymptomatic women (emergency conditions, gynecological consultation, gynecological diseases, obstetrics, and pregnancy). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 27 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 17 present a strong agreement, 7 a weak agreement and 3 an expert consensus agreement. Thirteen questions resulted in an absence of recommendation due to lack of evidence in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The need to perform clinical examination in gynecological and obstetrics patients was specified in 27 pre-defined situations based on scientific evidence. More research is required to investigate the benefit in other cases.