nach oben

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Erschienen in:

01.11.2015 | Review

Is pain better tolerated with mini-hysteroscopy than with conventional device? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hysteroscopy scope size and pain

verfasst von: Antonio Augusto Santos Paulo, Maria Helena Ruivo Solheiro, Carolina Oliveira Santos Paulo

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 5/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Hysteroscopy is an indispensable approach in gynecology. Miniaturization may reduce pain allowing office procedures without anesthesia.

Objectives

Our main objective is to determine if modifications in scope diameters have made office hysteroscopy less painful.

Search strategy

Studies were sought with key words “hysteroscopy” and “pain” from available online sources. Time frame was from 2000 onward. Thirty-three articles were retrieved for detailed analysis.

Selection criteria

Prospective randomized trials, studying pain as main outcome in office hysteroscopy expressed in means, confidence intervals and SD, comparing office mini-hysteroscopy to conventional hysteroscopy. Studies or arms within a study where conscientious sedation, anesthesia or non-steroidal drugs were used were excluded.

Data collection and analysis

We analyzed data from eight studies (seven RCT) comparing mini-hysteroscopy with conventional scopes, involving a total of twenty-three hundred and twenty-two participants, of which nineteen hundred and eighty-six completed the intervention.

Main results

A meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction pain score (MD: −3.64; 95 % CI −5.16 to −2.12; test for overall effect p < 0.00001) and available data support miniaturization decreases pain in outpatient hysteroscopy.

Conclusions

Pain in office hysteroscopy is lower with mini-hysteroscopes.

Review manager (RevMan) [Computer Program]. Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration (2008).

De Angelis C, Santoro G, Re ME, Nofroni I et al (2003) Office hysteroscopy and compliance: mini-hysteroscopy versus traditional hysteroscopy in a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 18(11):2441–2445CrossRefPubMed

Guida M et al (2006) Vaginoscopic versus traditional office hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 21(12):3253–3257CrossRefPubMed

Tanha FD, Salimi S, Ghajarzadeh M (2013) Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening before hysteroscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(5):937–940CrossRefPubMed

Sagiv R et al (2006) A new approach to office hysteroscopy compared with traditional hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 108(2):387–392CrossRefPubMed

Siristatidis C et al (2010) Office hysteroscopy: current trends and potential applications: a critical review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282(4):383–388CrossRefPubMed

Diniz DB et al (2010) Pain evaluation in office hysteroscopy: comparison of two techniques. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 32(1):26–32CrossRefPubMed

Ekin MYL, Akgöl S (2009) Comparison of Vaginoscopic No Touch Method with The Traditional Method of Outpatient Hysteroscopy. Med J Bak›rköy 5(2):4

Cooper NA et al (2010) Vaginoscopic approach to outpatient hysteroscopy: a systematic review of the effect on pain. BJOG 117(5):532–539CrossRefPubMed

Siristatidis C, Chrelias C (2011) Feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the “see and treat technique” in private practice: a prospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(4):819–823CrossRefPubMed

10.

Dealberti D et al (2013) New mini-resectoscope: analysis of preliminary quality results in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288(2):349–353CrossRefPubMed

11.

Romani F et al (2013) The use of different size-hysteroscope in office hysteroscopy: our experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288(6):1355–1359CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lagana AS et al (2014) 3D sonohysterography vs hysteroscopy: a cross-sectional study for the evaluation of endouterine diseases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290(6):1173–1178CrossRefPubMed

13.

Yang R et al (2014) The hysteroscopy and histological diagnosis and treatment value of chronic endometritis in recurrent implantation failure patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(6):1363–1369CrossRefPubMed

14.

Baxter AJ, Beck B, Phillips K (2002) A randomized prospective trial of rigid and flexible hysteroscopy in an outpatient setting. Gynaecological Endoscopy 11(6):357–364CrossRef

15.

Unfried G et al (2001) Flexible versus rigid endoscopes for outpatient hysteroscopy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 16(1):168–171CrossRefPubMed

16.

Raimondo G et al (2010) A randomized controlled study comparing carbon dioxide versus normal saline as distention media in diagnostic office hysteroscopy: is the distension with carbon dioxide a problem? Fertil Steril 94(6): 2319–2322CrossRefPubMed

17.

Cooper NA et al (2011) A systematic review of the effect of the distension medium on pain during outpatient hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 95(1):264–271CrossRefPubMed

18.

De Angelis C et al (2003) Suppression of pelvic pain during hysteroscopy with a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device. Fertil Steril 79(6):1422–1427CrossRefPubMed

19.

Angioli R et al (2014) Use of music to reduce anxiety during office hysteroscopy: prospective randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):454–459CrossRefPubMed

20.

Floris S et al (2007) Efficacy of intravenous tramadol treatment for reducing pain during office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 87(1):147–151CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lin YH et al (2005) Use of sublingual buprenorphine for pain relief in office hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(4):347–350CrossRefPubMed

22.

Campo R, Molinas CR, Rombauts L, Mestdagh G, Lauwers M, Braekmans P et al (2005) Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod 20(1):258–263CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cooper NA et al (2011) Does cervical preparation before outpatient hysteroscopy reduce women’s pain experience? A systematic review. BJOG 118(11):1292–1301CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cooper NA, Khan KS, Clark TJ (2010) Local anaesthesia for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340:c1130CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

25.

Kabli N, Tulandi T (2008) A randomized trial of outpatient hysteroscopy with and without intrauterine anesthesia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):308–310CrossRefPubMed

26.

Soriano D et al (2000) Lidocaine spray and outpatient hysteroscopy: randomized placebo-controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 96(5 Pt 1):661–664CrossRefPubMed

27.

Cengiz H et al (2014) Comparing the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine and paracervical block in decreasing the pain associated with endometrial biopsy: a randomised trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(3):609–614CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ahmad G et al (2010) Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10(11):CD007710

29.

de Carvalho Schettini JA (2007) Pain evaluation in outpatients undergoing diagnostic anesthesia-free hysteroscopy in a teaching hospital: a cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):729–735CrossRefPubMed

30.

Cicinelli E et al (2007) Predictive factors for pain experienced at office fluid minihysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(4):485–488CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cicinelli E (2010) Hysteroscopy without anesthesia: review of recent literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):703–708CrossRefPubMed

32.

Rullo S, Sorrenti G, Marziali M, Ermini B, Sesti F, Piccione E et al (2005) Office hysteroscopy: comparison of 2.7- and 4-mm hysteroscopes for acceptability, feasibility and diagnostic accuracy. J Reprod Med 50(1):45–48PubMed

33.

Torok P, Major T (2013) Evaluating the level of pain during office hysteroscopy according to menopausal status, parity, and size of instrument. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(5):985–988CrossRefPubMed

34.

Pluchino N, Ninni F, Angioni S, Artini P, Araujo VG, Massimetti G et al (2010) Office vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in infertile women: effects of gynecologist experience, instrument size, and distention medium on patient discomfort. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):344–350CrossRefPubMed

35.

Cicinelli E et al (2003) Tolerability and cardiovascular complications of outpatient diagnostic minihysteroscopy compared with conventional hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(3):399–402CrossRefPubMed

36.

Giorda G et al (2000) Feasibility and pain control in outpatient hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79(7):593–597CrossRefPubMed

37.

Kassem A, El-Brombly W (2005) Outpatient minihysteroscopy and conventional hysteroscopy: a comparative study. Middle East Fertil Society J 10(3):231–237

38.

De Iaco P et al (2000) Acceptability and pain of outpatient hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7(1):71–75CrossRefPubMed

39.

De Placido G et al (2007) Compliance and diagnostic efficacy of mini-hysteroscopy versus traditional hysteroscopy in infertility investigation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 135(1):83–87CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Is pain better tolerated with mini-hysteroscopy than with conventional device? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Hysteroscopy scope size and pain
verfasst von: Antonio Augusto Santos Paulo
Maria Helena Ruivo Solheiro
Carolina Oliveira Santos Paulo
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3731-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Is pain better tolerated with mini-hysteroscopy than with conventional device? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hysteroscopy scope size and pain

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Search strategy

Selection criteria

Data collection and analysis

Main results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Stillende Frauen haben geringeres kardiovaskuläres Risiko

Update Gynäkologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Search strategy

Selection criteria

Data collection and analysis

Main results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2015

AK000953 silencing can enhance the killing effect of danazol on uterine fibroids

Evaluation of the prognostic significance of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of primary, non-metastatic breast cancer patients after a 7-year follow-up

Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: 2-year experiences in non-tertiary center

Intra-abdominal adhesions: vaginal or abdominal delivery?

Efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators in laparoscopic surgery: a review

Myo-inositol is a promising treatment for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): an animal study

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Stillende Frauen haben geringeres kardiovaskuläres Risiko

Update Gynäkologie