Randomized placebo controlled trial to assess the role of intracervical lignocaine in outpatient hysteroscopy

Outpatient Hysteroscopy: (Green-top Guideline no. 59)

All gynaecology departments should provide a dedicated outpatient hysteroscopy service to aid care of women and people with abnormal uterine bleeding, reproductive problems, and insertion/retrieval of intrauterine devices. [Grade A] Written information should be provided to the woman prior to their appointment. This should include details about the procedure, the benefits and risks, advice regarding pre-operative analgesia, as well as alternative options for care and contact details for the hysteroscopy unit. [Good Practice Point] Women should be made aware of other settings and modes of anaesthesia for hysteroscopy (e.g. under general or regional anaesthesia or intravenous sedation). [GPP] The woman should be advised that if they find the procedure too painful or distressing at any point, they must alert the clinical team who will stop the procedure immediately. The clinical team should alert the hysteroscopist if the woman appears to be in too much pain or is experiencing a vasovagal episode and therefore unable to voice the concerns so that the procedure can be stopped. [GPP] Women should be advised to take standard doses of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) one hour before their scheduled appointment. Vaginoscopy should be the standard technique for outpatient hysteroscopy unless the use of a vaginal speculum is required (e.g. for administering local cervical anaesthesia or dilating the cervix). [Grade A] When performing operative hysteroscopy, the smallest diameter hysteroscope should be used, with consideration given to the use of hysteroscopes with expandable outer working channels because they are associated with less pain. [Grade B] Mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal systems should be preferred over miniature bipolar electrodes to remove endometrial polyps. [Grade A] Local anaesthesia should not be routinely administered prior to outpatient hysteroscopy where a vaginoscopic approach is used. It should be considered where use of a vaginal speculum is planned e.g. for cervical dilatation if anticipated, due to either cervical stenosis and/or the utilisation of larger-diameter hysteroscopes (≥5mm outer diameter). [Grade A] Saline should be instilled at the lowest possible pressure to achieve a satisfactory view. [Grade A] Conscious sedation should not be routinely used in outpatient hysteroscopic procedures. [Grade B].

Analgesic Efficacy of Intrauterine Lidocaine Flushing in Hysterosalpingo-foam Sonography: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of flushing the uterine cavity with lidocaine before hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) to reduce procedure-related pain.

DESIGN

A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shamir Medical Center, Israel between June 2020 and September 2020 involving 80 women undergoing a HyFoSy procedure.

SETTING

University-affiliated medical center.

PATIENTS

A total of 40 women were assigned randomly to the lidocaine group and 40 to the saline (placebo) group using a predetermined randomization code. Intrauterine instillation before the procedure consisting of either lidocaine 2% or normal saline alone was conducted, respectively.

INTERVENTIONS

The primary outcome measure was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score during the phase of intrauterine foam instillation reported by the women after the procedure. The VAS consisted of a 10-cm line ranging from 0 to 10 (anchored by 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain). On the basis of the VAS scores, the pain level ratings were classified as mild (rated 1-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The patient characteristics and obstetric data were found to be similar in both groups. Comparison of the VAS pain scores experienced during the procedure showed that women in the lidocaine flushing group rated the procedure less painful than the women in the saline group (3.0 ± 1.3 vs 6.3 ± 1.5, respectively; p = .001). The incidence of severe pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than the saline group (2.5% and 45.0%, respectively, p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine flushing of the uterine cavity before HyFoSy significantly decreased the pain known to be caused by this procedure and had the advantage of no side effects. It is easily applied, relatively inexpensive, and may affect compliance with this procedure.

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.

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.

Effect of Cervical Lidocaine Gel for Pain Relief in Pipelle Endometrial Sampling

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of cervical lidocaine gel in reducing patient discomfort during Pipelle endometrial sampling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2012 to January 2013, 137 patients were evaluated with Pipelle endometrial biopsy. For group 1 (77 women), 2% lidocaine gel was applied to the cervical canal 3 min before endometrial sampling. For group 2 (60 women), a placebo gel was applied. The pain experienced by the patients during biopsy was evaluated using a 100 mm visual analog scale.

RESULTS

The pain score was significantly lower during suction curettage (T3) in the group 1 than in the group 2. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of pain score in other stages of the procedure (2.6±1.3 and 4.5±1.4; p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Cervical 2% lidocaine gel is simple and effective for decreasing pain associated with Pipelle endometrial biopsy.

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.

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.

Transcervical intrauterine levobupivacaine or lidocaine infusion for pain control during endometrial biopsy

BACKGROUND

Endometrial biopsy is a common procedure for the investigation of many gynecological disorders including abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, abnormal cytology and infertility. Most women experience some degree of discomfort and pain during the procedure. Pain may occur during dilation of the cervix for insertion of the catheter and during endometrial biopsy, which further aggravates pain by inducing uterine contraction.

OBJECTIVES

To determine pain levels during endometrial biopsy by comparing intrauterine instillation of levobupivacaine or lidocaine with placebo in a randomized, double-blinded trial in pre- and postmenopausal women.

METHODS

Ninety patients were allocated to either control or experimental groups before endometrial biopsy. The trial medication was intrauterine anesthesia, either 5 mL 0.9% saline (control group), or 5 mL 0.5% levobupivacaine or 2% lidocaine (experimental groups). Resident doctors used the same endometrial biopsy technique to minimize the risk of technical variation. All tissue specimens were sent for cytopathological examination. The pathologists, who were blinded to the study solution, analyzed all tissue specimens. The primary outcome measure was pain experienced during the procedure. Pain was assessed using a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale. All observed adverse effects were recorded until the patients were discharged.

RESULTS

Pain scores of the intrauterine lidocaine and levobupivacaine groups were found to be significantly lower than the control group. There was no difference between the levobupivacaine and lidocaine groups with regard to pain scores. There was a moderately positive correlation between pain scores and endometrial thickness. No complications were observed due to the procedure. Most of the biopsy results were proliferative and secretory endometrium. Insufficient material causing inconclusive results was observed mostly in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Transcervical intrauterine topical instillation of levobupivacaine or lidocaine causes pain relief during endometrial biopsy. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of intrauterine anesthesia, to determine optimal concentration, volume and waiting time according to the type of local anesthetic agent, and to assess the applicability of the method to other intrauterine procedures.

[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.

Transcervical intrauterine levobupivacaine infusion or paracervical block for pain control during endometrial biopsy

The aim of this study was to determine pain during endometrial biopsy by comparing the use of intrauterine instillation of levobupivacaine or paracervical block with a placebo in a randomized, double-masked trial in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. A total of 90 women were enrolled in the study. Patients were allocated to either the control or case groups. Group 1 consisted of 30 cases with intrauterine anesthesia with 5 ml 0.5% levobupivacaine. Group 2 consisted of 30 patients who underwent paracervical block with lidocaine. No analgesic agent was given to the remaining 30 patients; these cases comprised the control group. The primary outcome measures were pain or discomfort experienced during the procedure. When the pain scores of the different groups were compared, the scores in the intrauterine levobupivacaine and paracervical block groups were found to be significantly lower compared to those in the control group. There was no difference between the levobupivacaine and paracervical block groups in terms of pain scores. There was a marked positive correlation between biopsy indications and pain scores. Pain scores were lower in cases with the indication of polymenorrhea, hypermenorrhea and metrorraghia compared to those in the cases with other indications. In conclusion, the transcervical intrauterine instillation of levobupivacaine or paracervical block with lidocaine brings about pain relief during and after endometrial biopsy.

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.

A prospective, randomised, single-blinded, controlled trial comparingtwo topical anaesthetic modalities for the application ofatenaculum to the cervix

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of equivalent doses of lignocaine spray vs lignocaine jelly in reducing pain during the application of a tenaculum to the cervix. A total of 58 women undergoing hysterosalpingography were prospectively randomised to receive either two doses of 10% lignocaine spray or 1 ml of 2% lignocaine jelly (both doses equivalent to 20 mg of lignocaine base) topically onto the cervix before tenaculum attachment. There was no difference in pain scores (measured by visual analogue scale and 4-point verbal descriptor scale) between lignocaine spray and lignocaine jelly during the attachment of the tenaculum to the cervix. In conclusion, there was no difference in pain during tenaculum attachment to the cervix following topical application of equivalent doses of either lignocaine jelly or spray.

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.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the amount of pain during and after hysteroscopy using local intracervical and combined local and paracervical anesthesia.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Eighty-four women who underwent outpatient hysteroscopy for evaluation of the uterine cavity at McGill University Health Center.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization to local intracervical or combined local and paracervical anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Amount of pain experienced during the procedure and at 10, 30, and 60 minutes after the procedure was measured using a visual analog scale ranging from zero to 10 (zero = no pain; 10 = excruciating pain). The mean age of the patients in the local anesthesia group was 36.1 +/- 0.7 years and in the combined local and paracervical anesthesia group was 35.2 +/- 0.7 years. Patients experienced significantly more pain during than after the procedure. The mean pain scores in the local anesthesia group were significantly higher than in the combined anesthesia group during the procedure (3.2 +/- 0.3 vs 2.1 +/- 0.2; p <.01; 95% CI 0-2), 10 minutes after the procedure (1.9 +/- 0.2 vs 1.5 +/- 0.3; p = .03; 95% CI 0-1), and 30 minutes after the procedure (1.7 +/- 0.2 vs 1.0 +/- 0.2; p = .02; 95% CI 0-1). However, there was no significant difference in pain scores at 60 minutes after the procedure between the local anesthesia and combined anesthesia groups (0.9 +/- 0.2 and 0.7 +/- 0.1, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient hysteroscopy with local or combined local and paracervical anesthesia was well tolerated by patients. However, combined anesthesia was associated with less pain during and at 10 and 30 minutes after the procedure. Most patients considered the pain as mild.

A New Approach to Office Hysteroscopy Compared With Traditional Hysteroscopy

OBJECTIVE

To compare a "no touch" approach to diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia with traditional diagnostic hysteroscopy after intracervical injection of mepivacaine hydrochloride 3%.

METHODS

A total of 130 women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy were included in the study and were randomized, using a computer-generated randomization list to one of two treatment groups in a ratio of 2:1. Eighty-three women underwent hysteroscopy without speculum, tenaculum, or anesthesia. Forty-seven women received intracervical anesthesia with 10 mL of 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride solution injected at two sites (3:00 and 9:00 positions) and underwent traditional hysteroscopy. Hysteroscopy was performed using a rigid 3.7-mm hysteroscope and a medium of 0.9% saline, and the image was transmitted to a screen visible to the patient. A visual analog scale (VAS) consisting of a 10-cm line was used to assess the intensity of pain experienced during and after the procedure. Overall patient satisfaction was assessed during, immediately after, 15 minutes later, and 3 days after hysteroscopy.

RESULTS

The mean pain score was significantly lower in the group without the use of speculum, tenaculum, or anesthesia (VAS1: 3.8+/-2.7 versus 5.34+/-3.23, P=.01; VAS2: 3.02+/-2.50 versus 4.57+/-3.30, P=.008). Patient satisfaction rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported significantly less pain with the altered approach to diagnostic hysteroscopy compared with patients undergoing the traditional procedure with anesthesia. This new approach can therefore be considered as a useful hysteroscopic technique.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00319410

General gynaecology: Intrauterine lignocaine as an anaesthetic during endometrial sampling: a randomised double-blind controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of intrauterine lignocaine as an anaesthetic during endometrial sampling.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient gynaecological minor operation unit in a public hospital.

POPULATION

Two hundred premenopausal women scheduled for endometrial sampling because of abnormal uterine bleeding.

METHODS

Transcervical intrauterine instillation of 5 mL of 2% lignocaine or 5 mL of normal saline before performing endometrial sampling with vacuum aspirator.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Evaluation of pain associated with the procedure using a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

The use of intrauterine lignocaine reduced pain during suction curettage in endometrial sampling.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcervical instillation of lignocaine reduced pain during endometrial sampling.

Anaesthesia and analgesia for ambulatory hysteroscopic surgery

Although ambulatory hysteroscopy is well established in dedicated centres, there is a delay in its general implementation. One reason for this may be the lack of consensus regarding a protocol for analgesia and anaesthesia in ambulatory hysteroscopy. This review looks at the various methods in use. These include the paracervical or intracervical injection of anaesthetic to establish a block. Topical anaesthetic may be applied to the surface of the endometrium in the uterine cavity or to the cervix. Oral analgesia is also used. A vaginoscopic approach to the uterine cavity without any anaesthesia is also becoming popular. Finally, combinations of the above methods have been employed for hysteroscopic surgical procedures, including the newer generation of endometrial ablation methods.

Use of sublingual buprenorphine for pain relief in office hysteroscopy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of sublingual buprenorphine in the relief of pain associated with office hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification I).

SETTING

Tertiary medical center.

PATIENTS

One hundred sixty-four women referred for office hysteroscopy from September 2003 through March 2004.

INTERVENTION

Before hysteroscopy, 80 women received a tablet of buprenorphine (group A), and 84 women received a placebo (group B). Their pain sensations were evaluated on a 10-cm visual analog scale, and they were asked about the adverse reactions and level of satisfaction on the following day.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The pain score in group A was 3.3 +/- 1.1, which was similar to 3.2 +/- 1.3 in group B. The pain scores in subgroups of women also were similar within the same group and between the two groups. Thirty-one women (38.8%) in group A reported adverse reactions, including nausea, vomiting, and drowsiness, while none in group B reported any adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

Office hysteroscopy with a 3.1-mm flexible hysteroscope is a well-tolerated procedure. Sublingual buprenorphine is not helpful in relieving the pain associated with hysteroscopy but is associated with significant adverse reactions.

Outpatient hysteroscopy: traditional versus the 'no-touch' technique

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether outpatient hysteroscopy using the 'no-touch' technique confers any advantages in terms of patient discomfort over the traditional technique.

DESIGN

Prospective randomised controlled study.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinic in a large university undergraduate teaching hospital.

POPULATION

All women referred for outpatient hysteroscopy in a 12-month period.

INTERVENTIONS

Women were randomised to undergo either traditional saline hysteroscopy requiring the use of a speculum and tenaculum, or a 'no-touch' vaginoscopic hysteroscopy which does not require a speculum or tenaculum. Each group was further subdivided to have hysteroscopy with either a 2.9-mm or 4-mm hysteroscope. Patients were asked to complete pre- and postprocedure questionnaires ranking pain scores.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The relative success of each of these techniques, requirement for local anaesthetic and pain scores at different times during the hysteroscopy were recorded at the end of the procedure. The time taken to carry out each procedure was also measured.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty women were recruited in this study: 60 were randomised to traditional hysteroscopy and 60 to 'no-touch' hysteroscopy. The overall success rate for hysteroscopy was 99%. There was no significant difference in the requirement for local anaesthetic between the two groups, but those who underwent 'no-touch' hysteroscopy with a 2.9-mm hysteroscope had the lowest requirement of local anaesthetic (10% compared with 27% in the no-touch hysteroscopy with a 4-mm hysteroscope group). The time taken to perform hysteroscopy and biopsy was significantly shorter with 'no-touch' hysteroscopy (5.9 vs 7.8 min; difference 1.9, 95% CI 0.7-3.1). There were no differences in pain scores between the groups at different times during hysteroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

'No-touch' or vaginoscopic hysteroscopy is significantly faster to perform than the traditional technique. Although there was no difference in pain scores between the two techniques, local anaesthetic requirements were least in those who underwent 'no-touch' hysteroscopy with a narrow bore hysteroscope.

Thermachoice endometrial ablation in the outpatient setting, without local anesthesia or intravenous sedation: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether Thermachoice endometrial ablation (EA) is a safe and acceptable procedure when performed in the outpatient (OP) setting without local anesthesia or IV sedation.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort (double group) study.

SETTING

Hysteroscopy clinic of large UK hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Twenty-seven women with menorrhagia.

INTERVENTION(S)

The first cohort of women underwent Thermachoice EA without elective analgesia. The second cohort underwent Thermachoice after taking ibuprofen.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

To map pain scores and the requirement of "rescue analgesia." To assess speed of recovery and time away from home.

RESULT(S)

Thermachoice EA was successfully performed in the OP setting on 89% (n = 24) of women. Four women in the first cohort required rescue analgesia compared to none in the second. During the procedure there was little difference between the groups visual analogue style pain scores-with the overall score being 3.6 (range = 0-10). Postoperatively there was a lower mean pain score in the second cohort, with fewer women experiencing nausea and vomiting. Mean time away from home was 2.6 hours and mean time to make a full recovery was 3.3 days. Women required analgesia for 2.6 days, on average, and returned to their normal activities at this time.

CONCLUSION(S)

Thermachoice EA without local analgesia or IV sedation can be safely and successfully performed in the OP setting and if ibuprofen is taken preoperatively few women require "rescue analgesia."

The technique and overview of flexible hysteroscopy

Flexible hysteroscopy is a safe, successful, and reliable method of investigation for abnormal uterine bleeding. When compared with rigid hysteroscopy flexible hysteroscopy is associated with less pain both at introduction of the hysteroscope and during the procedure itself especially when the diameter of the scope is reduced. This article provides evidence of the benefits of flexible hysteroscopy to the health service provider, clinician, and patient. Flexible hysteroscopy is acceptable to most women when performed in the outpatient setting without analgesia and offers a suitable alternative to rigid hysteroscopy.

Pain Relief and Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Literature Review

Our early experience in setting up an ambulatory hysteroscopy service provoked a review of the literature, due to an unacceptably high failure rate. A literature review has been undertaken to establish the accepted success rates and reasons for failure, and to assess evidence for various analgesic protocols through randomized controlled trials. The data suggest the procedure is acceptable to most patients, with a completion success rate over 90%, and the use of analgesia may enhance the success rate. Analgesic protocols studied were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intracervical block, paracervical block, transcervical block, and topical analgesia. Failures are due predominantly to pain, stenosis, and poor view.

Randomised comparison of distension media for outpatient hysteroscopy

OBJECTIVE

To compare saline with and without added lignocaine and carbon dioxide distension for out patient hysteroscopy with regards to patient discomfort and hysteroscopic view.

DESIGN

Single blind prospective randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Specialist out patient clinics in a large teaching hospital.

POPULATION

Women undergoing out patient hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy for abnormal uterine bleeding.

METHOD

Out patient hysteroscopy using carbon dioxide, saline or saline with lignocaine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analogue score (VAS) for pain and present pain intensity (PPI) as assessed by patients and the quality of hysteroscopic view as assessed by the operator.

RESULTS

Of the 305 women approached, 300 women were randomised into the study. The mean [SD] VAS for pain in the carbon dioxide group was 2.9 [2.3] and in the saline group was 3.1 [2.6], the difference was not statistically significant (P= 0.49). The mean [SD] VAS for pain in the saline plus lignocaine group was 3.2 [2.4]. This was not significantly different from the saline group (P= 0.72). There was a statistically significant difference between the confidence rating for the hysteroscopic view for the carbon dioxide compared with the saline group; mean [SD] was 8.3 [2.1] and 9.6 [1.1], respectively (P= 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Carbon dioxide and saline as distension media are comparable in terms of overall patient discomfort and satisfaction, but saline provides better views and increases confidence in diagnosis. Adding lignocaine to the saline distension medium does not confer any additional benefit.

Suppression of pelvic pain during hysteroscopy with a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) as a pain control method during office hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Gynecological Science and Perinatology, "La Sapienza" University, Rome, Italy.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred forty-two patients undergoing office hysteroscopy.

INTERVENTION(S)

Application of a TENS device on the patient's abdomen before and during office hysteroscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The level of pain experienced by the patients was assessed using a 10 cm visual analog scale; the side effects and changes in the hemodynamic parameters were evaluated.

RESULT(S)

The patients treated with TENS during hysteroscopy (group A, n = 71) were compared with a control group (group B, n = 71) on whom the TENS device was not used. The women in the TENS group experienced a significantly lower level of pain during hysteroscopy. No differences in side effects were observed between both group.

CONCLUSION(S)

TENS is a simple, efficient, and safe method of relieve pain during office hysteroscopy.

Oral dexketoprofen for pain treatment during diagnostic hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of dexketoprofen (DEX) in reducing pain at different stages of the hysteroscopic procedure in comparison with local anaesthesia in menopausal women.

METHODS

Menopausal patients affected by uterine bleeding submitted to diagnostic hysteroscopy, were randomised to receive either 25 mg DEX tablet (n = 148) or intracervical injection of 5 ml mepivacaine 2% (n = 150). Pain suffered during the procedure itself and 30, 60, 120 min after, was scored on the 11 point Visual Analogic Scale, recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

No statistical difference were noted during the procedure itself in both groups of treatment. Patients treated with DEX has significantly less postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX is not superior to mepivacaine in reducing the discomfort of the procedure but does significantly reduce postoperative pain.

Pain control in outpatient hysteroscopy

Office hysteroscopy has become increasingly used as first line investigation for abnormal uterine bleeding and other diseases involving the uterine cavity. The main limitation to its widespread use is pain and low patient tolerance. This review examines current literature on analgesia used in outpatient hysteroscopy with the purpose of establishing guidelines on methods of pain relief for the procedure. However, the review has failed to find substantial or conclusive evidence for the routine use of local analgesia in outpatient hysteroscopy. Most literature suggests that it is a well-tolerated procedure and recommends analgesic use only in selected patients. Additional research is indicated for developing superior narrow diameter hysteroscopes and endometrial biopsy devices to improve the acceptability of office hysteroscopy.

Is outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy more useful than endometrial biopsy alone for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in unselected premenopausal women? A randomised comparison

OBJECTIVE

To formally evaluate the clinical benefit of additional outpatient hysteroscopy over traditional vaginal examination and endometrial biopsy.

DESIGN

A prospective randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

A large teaching hospital in the northeast of Scotland. SAMPLE Premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding referred to the general gynaecologic clinic and requiring endometrial biopsy. METHODS Women were randomised to either outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy or endometrial biopsy alone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRIMARY OUTCOME

initial surgical intervention rates.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

procedural success and acceptability, intrauterine pathology identified and changes in management.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seventy women were recruited to the study. Initial trends in clinical management were comparable in both groups. No woman was advised to have removal of a localised lesion found at outpatient hysteroscopy and a normal uterine cavity at hysteroscopy did not influence the hysterectomy rate, which was similar in both groups. Outpatient hysteroscopy was found to be as acceptable as an outpatient endometrial biopsy and successfully completed in 85% compared with 91% of women who underwent endometrial biopsy alone. No cases of endometrial malignancy were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy is an acceptable procedure and may give more reassurance. It did not influence clinical management, especially with respect to hysterectomy rate. Outpatient hysteroscopy may be useful in selected cases, but when performed in a non-selective manner, it has little influence on clinical management and increases costs.

A randomized prospective comparative study of general versus epidural anesthesia for transcervical hysteroscopic endometrial resection

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare general versus epidural anesthesia during hysteroscopic endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

STUDY DESIGN

In a prospective comparative study, 24 women with abnormal uterine bleeding that was unresponsive to conservative medical management were randomly assigned to undergo hysteroscopic endometrial resection with either general or epidural anesthesia.

RESULTS

The durations of the endometrial resection procedure were similar for women who had general and epidural anesthesia (28.3 +/- 4.2 minutes vs 27.5 +/- 5.4 minutes, respectively). However, there was a statistically significantly lower absorption of distention fluid in women who underwent the procedure with general rather than epidural anesthesia (380.8 +/- 158.2 mL vs 648.3 +/- 157.1 mL, respectively; P < .0005).

CONCLUSION

A significantly lower amount of glycine distention fluid was absorbed during endometrial resection in women who underwent the procedure with general rather than epidural anesthesia.

Flexible versus rigid endoscopes for outpatient hysteroscopy: a prospective randomized clinical trial

To evaluate patient acceptance, optical properties and the clinical feasibility of flexible compared with rigid hysteroscopes, 142 patients undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy were included in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The flexible hysteroscope was used in 70 patients, and the rigid instrument in 72. At different stages of the hysteroscopy the level of pain experienced by the women was assessed using a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Optical properties characterized by the parameters intrauterine visibility, hysteroscopic view and diagnostic accuracy were ranked by the surgeons using a 5-point scale (1 = excellent to 5 = insufficient), and duration of the hysteroscopy was measured. Hysteroscopy was successful in 87.5 and 100% of patients in the flexible and rigid groups respectively. With the use of rigid telescopes, discomfort at introduction and during the hysteroscopy was significantly greater (median 1.7 versus 0.7, P = 0.003; 3.1 versus 1.2, P < 0.001 respectively), but optical properties were judged to be far superior (P < 0.001 for all three comparisons) and procedure time was significantly shorter (median 70 versus 120 s, P = 0.003). In conclusion, outpatient hysteroscopy seems to be less painful when using flexible telescopes. However, rigid hysteroscopes provide superior optical qualities and permit a more rapid performance with higher success rates at much lower cost.

The effect of an intrauterine application of two percent lignocaine gel on pain perception during Vabra endometrial sampling: a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether two percent lignocaine gel can reduce the perception of pain during Vabra endometrial aspiration.

DESIGN

Randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Women's Health Directorate, Warrington Hospital NHS Trust.

POPULATION

Women were referred to the endometrial sampling clinic for the investigation of pre and postmenopausal vaginal bleeding.

METHODS

Randomisation to either pre-sampling intrauterine two percent lignocaine gel or an inert gel. Patients, recruiters and assessors were blinded to the gel used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The difference between the study groups in the proportion of women who, after Vabra sampling, recorded a pain score of > or = 6 out of 10 on a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eight women were randomised, 284 (92%) completed a pain scale before and immediately after the procedure. After the procedure, 84 women (30%) recorded a pain score of > or = 6, 38 (26%) received anaesthetic and 46 (33%) an inert gel. The difference in the proportion of women recording a pain score of 6 or above between the two study groups was not significant (relative risk (RR) for the anaesthetic gel = 0.79 95% CI, 0.55, 1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Intrauterine application of 2% lignocaine gel did not significantly reduce the frequency with which women experienced unacceptable levels of pain or anxiety during endometrial aspiration compared with placebo.