Diagnostic office hysteroscopy; why is it still painful procedure despite the surgical experience and mini-hysteroscope?

Patients' Use of Virtual Reality Technology for Pain Reduction during Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of virtual reality technology (VRT), as used by patients, for reducing pain during outpatient hysteroscopy.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and clinical registers were searched until June 21, 2023. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO before the data extraction (CRD42023434340).

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We included RCTs of patients receiving VRT compared with controls receiving routine care during outpatient hysteroscopy.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The primary outcome was average pain during hysteroscopy. Pooled results were expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Sources of heterogeneity were investigated through sensitivity and subgroups analysis. Five RCTs were included (435 participants). The comparison between the intervention and control groups showed a borderline difference in perceived pain during hysteroscopy (MD -0.88, 95% CI -1.77 to 0.01). Subgroup analysis based on the type of VRT (active or passive) indicated that active VRT potentially reduced the perception of pain (MD -1.42, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.62), whereas passive VRT had no effect (MD -0.06, 95% CI -1.15 to 1.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients' use of active VRT may be associated with a reduction in pain during outpatient hysteroscopy (evidence Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation 2/4). Future research should focus on conducting methodologically robust studies with larger sample sizes and more homogeneous populations.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a local anesthetic compared to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug alone significantly reduce the pain associated with vaginoscopic office hysteroscopy

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Pain is the most common cause of office hysteroscopy (OH) failure. There is no consensus on alleviation of pain during OH. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of pain-relieving methods during OH.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized open-label trial included women subjected to OH. All women received 100 mg of ketoprofen intravenously pre-procedure. Women were randomly assigned to 3 arms: A) no local anesthesia, B) infiltration anesthesia with 20 ml of 1% lidocaine solution, C) paracervical block with 20 ml of 1% lidocaine solution. Karl Storz Bettocchi® rigid hysteroscope with a 5 mm operative sheath was used. Intensity of pain in numeric rating scale (NRS), intensity of cervical bleeding, frequency of vasovagal episodes, and failure rate were compared.

RESULTS

The study involved 201 women, 67 in each arm. NRS value during OH was higher in arm A than in B and C (6.3 vs. 5.1 vs. 5.0; p = 0.01). NRS value after OH did not differ and in all arms pain was imperceptible (p = 0.007). Cervical bleeding was more frequent in arm B than in A and C (76.1% vs. 33.4% vs. 35.9%; p < 0.0001), but its intensity did not differ from the other arms (p = 0.3). Vasovagal episode was most common in arm B (p = 0.048). There was no difference in the failure rate between the arms (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The paracervical block, albeit technically the most laborious, has proven to be the most beneficial for the patient in terms of overall comfort and for the surgeon regarding feasibility.

Efficacy of Oral Nifedipine, Naproxen, or Placebo for Pain Relief During Diagnostic Hysteroscopy in an Office Setting: A Randomized Pilot Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare nifedipine, naproxen, or placebo for pain relief during diagnostic hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Women scheduled for office diagnostic hysteroscopy (n = 60).

INTERVENTIONS

Women received nifedipine (2 tablets of 10 mg), naproxen (2 tablets of 250 mg), or placebo (2 tablets of 500 mg lactose) 30 to 60 minutes prior to hysteroscopy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in the study (21 in the nifedipine group, 19 in the naproxen group, and 20 in the placebo group). The median pain scores during hysteroscope insertion, measured on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), were 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-0), 2 (0-4) and 1 (0-1) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,14). The median VAS scores during hysteroscopy were 5 (IQR 2-7), 5 (4-8) and 5 (3-7) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,73). The median VAS scores immediately after hysteroscopy were 2 (IQR 0-4), 3 (0-6) and 3 (1-5) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,40). The median VAS scores 30 minutes after hysteroscopy were 1 (IQR 0-2), 1 (0-1) and 1 (0-2) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,63). Hysteroscope insertion failed in 1 case (naproxen group) because of cervica`l stenosis (P,32). Flushes, fatigue and vertigo, 30 minutes after the procedure, were significantly more prevalent in the nifedipine group compared to the naproxen (p < .001, p,03, p,03, respectively) and the placebo group (p < .001, p,01, p,01, respectively). Palpitations occurred only in the nifedipine group (p < .001). The day after the procedure, the headache was most prevalent in the nifedipine group compared to the naproxen group (p,001) and the placebo group (p,001).

CONCLUSION

In our pilot study, pain relief and success rates for office diagnostic hysteroscopy were not significantly different between nifedipine, naproxen, and placebo. Nifedipine was associated with more, albeit tolerable, side-effects.

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.

See-and-treat in-office hysteroscopy versus operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception: A retrospective study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of in-office hysteroscopy with a see-and-treat approach with that of operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception (RPOC).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified all consecutive patients who underwent hysteroscopic treatment of RPOC between 2015 and 2019. We excluded patients with RPOC larger than 2 cm at preoperative transvaginal ultrasounds. Between 2015 and 2017, all hysteroscopic removals of RPOC were performed by operative hysteroscopy. Between 2018 and 2019, all cases of RPOC less than 2 cm in size were hysteroscopically removed by the see-and-treat approach in the office setting. Sociodemographic, clinical, and procedure characteristics along with complications were retrieved from medical records.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2019, 119 women underwent hysteroscopic removal of RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm: 53 patients by in-office hysteroscopy, and 66 by operative hysteroscopy. The two groups were similar in preoperative characteristics. Although the time required to complete the RPOC removal was similar, the total procedure and assistant time were significantly higher in the operative hysteroscopy group (p < 0.001). Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was associated with a higher proportion of cases complicated by excessive bleeding, cervical tear, or uterine perforation (p = 0.016). Failure to complete the procedure was similarly reported in the two groups (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

In-office hysteroscopy with the see-and-treat approach for RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm appears as effective as operative hysteroscopy, but safer. In-office hysteroscopy may be considered the first choice for treating RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm.